r 


Columbia  ?!äniberöitp 
in  tfje  Citp  of  i^eto  gorb 


LIBRARY 


•U^Or^ 


/   ^  I    .^ 


I 


THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 


Nous  n'avons  que  deux  jours  ä  vivre;  ce  n'est 
pas  la  peine  de  les  passer  ä  ramper  sous  des 
coquins  meprisables. 

II  ne  se  fait  rien  de  grand  dans  le  monde  que 
par  le  genie  et  la  fermete  d'un  seul  homme  qui 
lutte  contre  les  prejuges  de  la  mul^'  mcV. 
hie  U  /^/ V  -fM-;  Voltaire. 


THE 
WORLD  AT  WAR 


BY 

GEORG  BRANDES 


TRANSLATED  BY 

CATHERINE  D.  GROTH 


Nrm  fork 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1917 

All  rights  reserved 


^        313  1^ 


Copyright,   1917, 
By  the   MACTÜTLLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  printed.     Published,   May,   1917. 


PEEFACE 

^^  In  "  The  World  at  War  "  Georg  Brandes  has  col- 
lected some  of  his  essays  on  the  war  and  the  events 
leading^ up  to  it,  written  before  and  during  the  great 
conflict.  From  the  prophetic  "Foreboding"  of  1881 
to  his  "  Conclusion  "  as  to  what  must  be  the  basis  of 
lasting^  peace,  Brandes  fearlessly  and  with  a  burning 
sen?'  01  jastico  uncovers  various  aspects  of  the  war, 
never  allowing  himself  to  be  biased. 

In  his  letter  to  Clemenceau  Tnay  be  found  the  key 
to  his  attitude: 

"  But  I  would  confess  to  you  that  I  have  a  very  high 
regard  for  the  writer's  calling.  If  he  is  not  Truth's 
consecrated  priest  he  is  only  fit  to  be  thrown  on  the 
scrap  heap.'' 

C.  D.  G. 


CONTENTS 

»AGB 

Foreboding  — 1881  —  A  Vision  of  the  Future   ...       1 

The  Death  of  Kaiser  Friedrich  — 1888  —  The  Death 

of  the  Keal  German  Spirit 4 

England   and    Germany  — 1905  —  The    Probability    of 
"War  Between  Them 8 

French   Youth  — 1913  —  Its    Characteristics    and   As- 
pirations        ^^ 

German  Patriotism  — 1913  —  The  Glorification  of  War    22 

The  Fundamental  Causes  of  the  World  War  — 1914    32 

Different  Points  of  View  on  the  War  — 1914  —  The 

English,  French  and  German  Point  of  View  ...     55 

Conditions  in  Eussun  Poland  — 1914-15  —  The  Perse- 
cution of  the  Jews Ö3 

Poland  — 1915-16  —  Poland's  History  and  Hopes   .      .  118 

The  Conquest  of  Basra  — 1914  —  The  Bagdad  Railway 

and   the    War    for    Trade 138 

The  Great  Era  — 1915  —  An  Era  Great  in  Bloodshed  .  147 

Neutrality  — 1915  —  An   Open   Letter  to  M.   Georges 

Clemengeau 153 

Will  This  Be  the  Last  War?  — 1915 167 

The  Praise  OF  War  — 1915 174 

Protectors  of  Small  Nations  — 1915  —  The  Solicitude 
of  Great  Nations  for  the  Small 183 


COl^TENTS 

PAOE 

An  Appeal  — 1916  —  A  Plea  for  Common  Sense   .     .  213 

Ideals    or   Politics?  — 1916  —  Reply    to    Mr.    William 

Archer 220 

Let   Justice    Reign  !  — 1916  —  Reply   to   Mr.    William 

Archer 232 

Belgium  —  Persia  — 1916  —  Reply     to     Mr.     William 

Archer 242 

Conclusion  — 1916  —  The    Abolishment    of    Militarism 

and  Universal  Free  Trade 260 


THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

rOEEBODING 

July  11,  1881 

...  I  do  not  believe  that  Socialism,  as  a  party,  will 
come  to  power  in  Germany  within  a  reasonable  number 
of  years.  Its  influence  will  be  limited  to  carrying  oul: 
the  obvious  reforms  of  Bismarck's  state-socialistic  ideas. 
Yet  this  influence,  such  as  it  is,  is  considerable  and  ere 
ates  a  highly  illogic  situation,  since  doctrines  pursue«! 
in  the  cellars  as  "  dangerous  to  the  state  "  are  hailt^d 
from  the  housetops  as  the  state's  only  salvation.  Wlio 
would  have  thought  this  possible,  even  two  years  ago  ? 

This  does  not  imply,  however,  that  any  real  blow  h?  - 
been  dealt  conservatism  in  Germany.  O  (■'•ke  contrai  v 
state-socialism,  deprived  of  the  fundamental  principle-^ 
of  fraternity  and  self-government,  is  by  the  very  natur^- 
of  things  a  liberty-sapping  doctrine.  It  is  upheld  by 
men  of  science  like  Adolph  Wagner,  who  began  as  a 
follower  of  Rodbertus  and  Lassalle  only  to  end  as  a  be- 
liever in  the  confused  principles  of  the  Christian  state 
and  as  a  defender  of  indirect  taxation.  He  who  has 
followed  Germany's  evolution  during  the  last  half  dozen 
years  has  been  able  to  note  the  transformation  of  the 

1 


2  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

socialistic-minded  youth  at  the -luiiversi ties.  During 
the  last  few  years  the  rare  "  red  "  intellei^ts  among  the 
younger  professors  who  began  by  hating  governmental 
oppression  and  oflScial  hypocrisy  and  by  sympathising 
with  the  common  man  have  changed  their  attitude  com- 
pletely. Their  fire  has  burnt  out,  their  powder  has 
grown  damp.  Of  the  passionate  desire  for  reform  only 
a  limp  state-socialism  remains.  It  does  not  differ  essen- 
tially from  that  of  the  bureaucrats  who  approve  of  state 
ownership  of  railroads,  nor  from  that  of  the  official 
clergy  who  use  socialism  as  a  means  of  thwarting  the 
liberals,  and  of  favouring  reaction  under  its  cover. 
That  some  of  these  men  still  express  themselves  in  the 
vocabulary  of  their  early  youth,  means  nothing. 

And,  save  these  few  and  doubtful  exceptions,  the  in- 
tellectuals of  the  younger  generation  are  all  reactionary. 
Political  free  thinkers  are  found  only  among  men  of 
sixty  or  over.  While  the  average  man  still  is  a  free 
thinker  in,  or  rather  shows  a  complete  indifference  to, 
religion,  he  seems  to  have  no  difficulty  in  associating 
even  pantheism  very  satisfactorily  with  official  Chris- 
tianity and  political  conservatism.  Politically,  the 
young  are  old,  and  only  the  old  are  young.  The  love 
of  liberty,  in  the  English  sense,  is  to  be  found  in  Ger- 
many only  among  men  of  the  generation  which,  within 
ten  years,  will  have  disappeared. 

And  when  that  time  comes,  Germany  will  lie  alone, 
isolated,  hated  by  the  neighbouring  countries :  a  strong- 


rOEEBODING  3 

hold  of  conservatism  in,  tlie  centre  of  Europe.  Around 
it,  in  Italy,  in  France,  in  Russia,~in  the  North,  there 
will  rise  a  generation  imbued  with  international  ideas 
and  eager  to  carry  them  out  in  life.  But  Germany  will 
lie  there,  old  and  half  stifled  in  her  coat  of  mail,  armed 
to  the  teeth,  and  protected  by  all  the  weapons  of  mur- 
der and  defence  which  science  can  invent. 

And  there  will  come  great  struggles  and  greater  wars. 
If  Germany  wins,  Europe,  in  comparison  with  America, 
will  politically  be  as  Asia  in  comparison  to  Europe. 
But  if  Germany  loses,  then  ... 

But  it  is  not  seemly  to  play  the  prophet. 


THE  DEATH  OF  THE  REAL  GERMAN  SPIRIT 

EAISER  FRIEDRICHS  DEATH 
(June  15,  1888) 

The  short  interregnum  is  over.  The  man  whose 
ascension  to  the  throne  was  awaited  with  expectancy  for 
decades,  with  fear  by  some  but  with  the  clearest  hopes 
by  others,  has  passed  away  without  being  able  to  fulfil 
any  promise  or  carry  out  any  expectation.  It  seems 
a  symbol  of  the  tenacity  of  European  conservatism  that 
his  father  lived  to  be  ninety.  It  is  symbolic,  too,  that 
the  Emperor  whose  name  was  synonymous  with  noble 
generosity,  manly  warm-heartedness,  liberal  intelligence 
and  genuine  culture  should  disappear  from  the  political 
stage  without  leaving  any  trace  except  that  one  first 
proclamation  which  seemed  and  which  was  a  testament. 
A  few  practical  politicians  may  have  found  it  doctrinary, 
but  it  bore  the  hallmark  of  an  independent,  liberal, 
broad-minded  personality  —  a  royal  personality  which, 
for  the  first  time,  made  use  of  its  right  to  proclaim,  or 
have  proclaimed,  the  motto  engraved  on  its  shield. 

But  even  if  he  was  unable  to  accomplish  anything 
politically.  Emperor  Friedrich  nevertheless  used  the 
few  months  when  he  lived  with  death's  cold  hand  on  his 

4 


KAISER  FHIEDRICH'S  DEATH  5 

throat  so  as  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  how  he  would  have 
led  the  state  had  he  had  vitality  as  well  as  will  poweiv^ 
The  whole  world  gasped  at  the  drama  of  a  dying  man 
dismissing  Germany's  "  Major  Domo  " —  at  an  emperor 
who,  on  his  deathbed,  showed  his  horror  of  bureaucratic 
insolence  and  despotism  and  his  unconditional  love  of 
political  freedom.  Puttkamm  er 's  fall  was  an  execution 
in  effigie  of  reaction's  hatred  of  liberty. 

Unfortunately,  however,  only  in  effigie.  The  wooden 
doll  lies  broken  on  the  scaffold  but  the  living  hatred  of 
liberty  remains  triumphant  and  with  clanging  spurs  will 
begin  again  to  gallop  madly  around  the  throne. 

As  Crown  Prince,  Emperor  Friedrich  gave  an  im- 
pression of  unusual  manly  beauty.  In  his  white  cui- 
rassier uniform,  tall,  broad-shouldered,  blond  and  blue 
eyed  like  Siegfried,  he  was  an  impressive  figure.  His 
smile  came  from  the  heart;  his  manner  was  distin- 
guished and  cordial. 

Those  who  had  the  privilege  of  receiving  a  personal 
letter  from  him,  written  in  a  clear,  upright  and  beauti- 
ful handwriting,  received  an  impression  of  chivalrous 
warmth,  of  noble  fellow  feeling.  He  wrote  to  his  friends 
as  Hamlet  speaks  to  Horatio. 

He  was  intellectually  free,  without  hardness  and 
without  obstinacy,  yet  he  lacked  neither  dignity  nor 
brilliancy.  Until  branded  by  his  last  illness,  his  per- 
sonality was  royal.  Yet  even  when  in  full  armour  his 
face  and  manner  showed  that,  unlike  his  father  and  his 


6  THE  WOKLD  AT  WAR 

8on,  he  had  never  allowed  the  military  corset  to  crush 
his  heart  out  of  place.  He  had  not  only  a  heart,  like, 
his  father,  but  a  heart  in  the  right  place. 

There  was  something  magnanimous  about  hia 
spirit  which  broke  through  even  the  hard  tnles  of 
military  discipline.  In  1870-71  he  pardoned  on  the 
spot  French  war  correspondents  caught  on  the  battle- 
field in  civilian  clothes,  who,  according  to  the  law,  should 
have  been  shot  as  spies.  Upon  their  return  to  France, 
in  the  articles  expressing  their  thanks,  they  remarked 
that  German  prisoners  would  have  been  shot  without 
mercy  in  France  under  the  same  conditions. 

At  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  there  was  no 
place  on  the  throne  of  a  gi-eat  power  for  a  character 
such  as  his.  And  reaction,  the  enormous  hell  dog,  has 
swallowed  his  reign  in  a  mouthful  and  after  the  short 
interruption  will  now  begin  unmolested  to  bark  again 
with  its  three  heads :  chauvinism,  bigotry  and  war  mad- 
ness. 

As  l^apoleon's  short  break  in  Louis  XVIII's  reign 
was  called  The  Hundred  Days,  so  this  short  gleam  of  a 
clear  human  spirit  breaking  in  on  our  war-mad  empire 
might  be  called  the  Hundred  Days'  Intermission. 

And  the  late  Emperor  represented  not  only  real  hu- 
manity but  the  real  German  spirit  —  the  spirit  which 
abdicated  when  the  new  German  Empire  was  estab- 
lished. 

It  is  curious  how  blind  the  world  is  to  the  fact  that 


KAISEK  FKIEDKICH'S  DEATH  7 

the  period  of  Germany's  so-called  decadence,  the  lena 
period,  when  Prussia  was  humiliated  by  JS^apoleon,  in 
reality  represents  Germany's  most  gloriously  brilliant 
era.  At  that  time  the  German  spirit  first  grew  to  be  a 
power  and  to'  conquer  the  world.  Everything  German 
that  is  loved  or  appreciated  throughout  the  world  dates 
from  that  time.  Germany's  recent  and  most  successful 
period,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  piost  barren  of  all  in 
regard  to  w^hat  one  would  call  culture.  Soou,  indeed, 
German  cultu.-e  and  German  spirit  will  be  only  a  saga 
in  the  German  Empire.  The  possibility  of  its  blos- 
soming forth  again  vanished  with  Emperor  Friedrich' s 
death.  With  him  the  last  representative  of  a  human 
Germany  disappeared.  A  national  Germany,  only,  is 
now  left. 

Undoubtedly  Denmark  is  obliged  to  show  considera- 
tion to  her  southern  neighbour.  Politically  we  cannot 
have  it  as  an  enemy.  Yet  we  mus^  admit  that  at  the 
present  moment  Russian  intellect  is  much  more  liberal 
and  inspired  than  the  German,  and  those  whom  the  Pan- 
Germanists  call  our  ^'  German  brothers  "  will  soon  be 
our  brothers  only  in  philistinism,  pedantism  and  servil- 
ity. J*krt  liberty,  but  order  and  might,  is  the  motto  of 
new  Germany.  And  the  days  in  store  for  Europe  may 
be  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  song  in  Yaulundur's 

Saga :     Hard  days,  sword  days,  death  days. 


ENGLAND  AND  GERMANY 
(October,  1905) 

The  desire  for  peace  professed  by  most  ^'  intel- 
lectuals "  in  Europe  contains  an  element  of  danger,  for 
man  is  inclined  to  mistake  his  desires  for  reality  and 
to  believe  he  is  on  the  verge  of  obtaining  what  he  only 
sees  in  his  dreams.  In  politics,  as  in  other  matters,  it 
is  advisable  to  face  facts  squarely  and  see  them  as  they 
really  are. 

Our  press,  however,  invariably  dismisses  every  men- 
tion of  conflict  between  England  and  Germany  as  "  sen- 
sational twaddle "  and  praises  as  "  cold  blooded  and 
rational "  every  claim  that  such  a  war  is  impossible. 
"  Neither  Germany's  nor  England's  statesmen  would 
be  so  insane  as  to  plunge  their  countries  into  war,"  is 
the  popular-  refrain. 

Allow  me,  first  of  all,  to  protest  against  the  use  of  the 
words  ^'  cold  blooded."  It  does  not  require  a  whit  more 
cold  bloodedness  to  consider  a  war  between  England 
and  Germany  impossible,  than  it  does  to  consider  it  pos- 
sible, probable  and  under  certain  conditions,  unavoid- 
able. 

In  discussing  the  future  we  beat  our  brains  against 

8 


ENGLAND  AND  GERMANY  9 

the  unknown,  of  whicli  only  prophets  care  to  speak.  If 
we  limit  ourselves  to  the  discussion  of  recent  events,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  have  solid  ground  under  our  feet. 
And  in  this  respect  I  knew  more  than  three  months  ago 
of  the  facts  which  we  are  only  beginning  to  wake  up  to 
now,  in  October,  and  if  at  that  time  I  drew  attention 
to  Denmark's  perilous  position,  it  was  because  I  knew 
what  I  was  talking  about  —  differing  in  this  respect 
from  many  of  my  scribbling  compatriots  who  cull  most 
of  their  knowledge  from  the  press  and  who  evidently 
were  not  au  courant. 

Much  of  what  I  know  I  must  leave  unsaid,  as  the 
time  has  not  yet  come  for  publication,  but  at  this 
moment  every  one  knows  that  in  the  beginning  of  June 
the  peace  of  Europe  was  seriously  threatened.  '  So  seri- 
ously, in  fact,  that  if  Delcasse  had  not  been  overthrown, 
June  6,  war  would  have  broken  out  between  Germany 
on  the  one  side  and  England-France  on  the  other. 

It  has  been  proved  that  Delcasse' s  attempt  to  isolate 
Germany  was  the  cause  of  Emperor  William's  extraordi- 
nary action  in  Tangiers.  Soon  afterwards  the  German 
Government  adopted  a  threatening  attitude.  In  the 
first  days  of  June  the  German  ambassador  in  Rome  in- 
formed the  Italian  Government  (so  that  the  message 
might  be  transmitted  to  the  French  Government)  that  if 
^'  France  acted  upon  a  certain  ultimatum  it  was  reported 
to  have  sent  the  Sultan  of  Morocco,  Germany  would 
march  out  of  the  gates  of  Metz." 


10  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Most  assuredly  France,  at  that  time,  had  not  sent 
any  ultimatum  to  the  Sultan.  But  the  threat  implied 
that  Germany  supported  the  Moroccan  Government  in 
defiance  of  a  policy  which,  sooner  or  later,  might 
lead  France  to  send  an  ultimatum  to  the  Sultan 
and  to  follow  it  up  by  despatching  troops  across  the 
border. 

The  English  Government  had  repeatedly  offered  to 
form  some  sort  of  an 'alliance  with  France,  but  hitherto, 
owing  to  Delcasse's  Russian  alliance,  these  advances 
had  «met  with  unfavourable  or  evasive  replies.  Yet  be- 
fore the  French  ambassador  in  Rome,  M.  Barrere,  in- 
formed his  Government  of  the  German  note,  the  French 
ambassador  in  London,  M.  Cambon,  telegraphed  to 
Paris  —  in  the  end  of  May  —  that  the  English  Govern- 
ment was  ready  to  enter  into  an  agreement  whereby 
the  interests  of  the  two  nations  could  be  safeguarded. 
Negotiations  followed  and  led  to  an  understanding. 
Some  very  startling  revelations  were  made  in  the  sen- 
sational press  in  regard  to  this  agreement  —  sheer  in- 
ventions, for  the  most  part,  ^md  open  to  ridicule,  like 
the  provision  for  the  landing  of  100,000  men  in  Schles- 
wig—  but  the  rumours  are  not  without  foundation, 
that  has  been  proved  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt. 

In  official  circles  attempts  are  made  to  explain  every- 
thing by  the  following  innocent  formula.  England 
merely  suggested  that  if  a  friendly  neighbouring  state 
were  to  become  the  object  of  an  unexpected  and  unpro- 


EKGLAND  AND  GERMANY  11 

voked  attack,  Great  Britain  would  lend  her  utmost 
assistance.  So  much  had  to  be  admitted  after  Delcasse's 
unpardonable  openmouthedness  had  made  the  affair  a 
matter  of  general  discussion.  The  explanation  has 
particu^lar  significance  if  one  reads  between  the  lines, 
and  even  more  significant  is  Jaures'  statement  that 
through  remarks  made  by  three  different  French  cabi- 
net ministers  he  knew  of  the  Matins  sensational  revela- 
tions long  before  they  were  published. 

Without  wishing  to  appear  as  a  clubhouse  politician, 
I  would  like,  briefly,  to  mention  a  few  facts  which,  as 
far  as  I  know,  are  not  state  secrets: 

1.  If  England  is  to  maintain  her  supremacy  in  the 
world  her  navy  must  be  stronger  than  the  two  next 
greatest  navies  in  Europe. 

2.  Germany  tries  to  increase  and  still  increase  her 
fleet  by  every  means  within  her  power. 

3.  England  foresees  the  day  when  she  will  no  longer 
be  able  to  build  new  warships  because  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  finding  hands  to  man  them. 

Certain  men  in  England  consider  a  war  with  Ger- 
many unavoidable  and  would  prefer  to  have  it  while 
Germany  is  comparatively  weak.  For  every  year  that 
goes,  victory  will  have  to  be  more  dearly  bought. 

It  may  be  that  England,  in  the  beginning  of  1905, 
thought  the  time  had  come  or  that  it  was  not  far  dis- 
tant. Remarks  made  by  Kin;^^  Edw^'-^d  during  his  stay 
in  Paris  as  well  as  by  the  British  ambassador  in  the 


12  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

presence  of  several  witnesses,  showed  that  relations  be- 
tween the  two  countries  were  very  tense.  The  demon- 
strative way  in  which  King  Edward  avoided  meeting 
Emperor  ^Yilliam  during  his  stay  in  Marienbad  pointed 
in  the  same  direction. 

'^0  one  can  deny  that  Germany  has  great  naval  äM- 
bitions.  With  or  without  reason,  Emperor  William's 
meeting  with  Tzar  ]^icholas  at  Björkö  was  interpreted 
by  many  to  imply  a  closing  of  the  Baltic.  If  Germany 
and  Russia  so  wished  it,  the  Baltic  would  practically 
become  a  German  lake,  since  the  Russian  fleet  was  des- 
troyed in  the  Russo-Japanese  War. 

But  then  Great  Britain  began  to  stir.  As  a  coun- 
ter demonstration  —  without  committing  herself  in 
words  —  she  sent  a  larger  portion  of  her  fleet  to  the 
Baltic  than  Germany  had  done. 

When  German  men-of-war  visit  Danish  waters  it 
causes  no  surprise.  They  have  made  themselves  at 
home  here  and  carry  on,  unhindered,  their  manoeuvres 
and  measurements.  They  know  the  Belts  so  well  that 
they  pass  through  even  the  Little  Belt  without  a  Danish 
pilot;  they  are  able  to  find  their  way  in  the  dark  with- 
out a  light.  It  is  impossible  to  overrate  their  knowl- 
edge of  our  waters  and  the  effort  spent  in  acquiring  it. 
It  is  a  question  whether  the  Danes  know  these  waters 
as  well  as  the  Germans. 

England  scorns  or  neglects  such  details.  English 
men-of-war  are  not  familiar  with  our  coast!=.     And  it 


E:t^GLAI^D  AND  GEKMAISTY  13 

was  the  first  time  within  man's  memory  that  the  English 
fleet  visited  the  Sound. 

Germany  did  not  misunderstand.  When  the  English 
fleet  visited  Danish  ports,  Graf  Eeventlow,  a  highly 
esteemed  authority  on  naval  matters,  wrote  in  Die 
Zukunft  that  the  presence  of  the  Channel  fleet  in  Ger- 
man and  Danish  waters  must  be  interpreted  as  a  serious 
political  demonstration  against  an  eventual  alliance  be- 
tween the  Baltic  powers,  Russia  and  Germany,  in  view 
of  closing  the  Baltic. 


FKENCH  YOUTH 

(August,  1913) 

Rarely  has  a  country  shown  such  interest  in  its  youth 
as  France  to-day.  The  whole  nation  seems  vibrant  with 
a  desire  to  know  what  the  younger  generation  is  think- 
ing of,  what  its  aims  and  ambitions  are,  what  will  be 
its  force  of  action.  The  magazines  are  filled  with  arti- 
cles and  symposiums,  while  books,  pamphlets  and  essays 
on  the  same  subject  appear  in  such  quantities  that  only 
the  foreigner  closely  in  touch  with  French  conditions 
is  able  to  keep  abreast  of  them. 

Of  course  there  are  many  divergencies  of  opinion. 
Yet  on  a  surprising  number  of  points  almost  every  one 
seems  to  agree.  Especially  is  this  true  in  regard  to  the 
characteristics  of  the  intellectual  elite  of  future  France. 

First  of  all,  the  youth  of  France  is  claimed  to  be 
young,  at  last.  It  is  optimistic.  It  bubbles  over  with 
self-confidence.  Exercise  and  sports  have  developed 
its  daring.  Since  the  humiliation  of  1871  its  pride  in 
France  has  been  reborn.  It  is  intensely  energetic,  but 
its  energy  is  directed  according  to  French  traditions. 

It  does  not  dream,  nor  doubt,  nor  ponder.  It  is 
mentally  sound  and  robust. 

14 


FRENCH  YOUTH  15 

Secondly,  it  is  passionately  idealistic.  It  looks  down 
on  mercenary  considerations  and  economic  struggles. 
It  risks  its  life  without  hesitation  (most  frequently,  of 
course,  in  fiction).  It  is  convinced  that  it  sets  Europe 
a  brilliant  example. 

Thirdly,  it  is  intensely  national.  It  shakes  off  what 
its  fathers  learned  of  foreigners,  and  it  does  not  wish 
to  learn  from  them.  It  admires  France  to  the  point  of 
worship;  it  feels  equal  to  continuing  French  tradition. 

Finally,  it  admires  passionately  everything  that 
unites  France  and  the  French;  it  ignores  whatever 
would  tend  to  split  them.  It  worships,  therefore,  the 
principles  of  fraternity,  it  bends  willingly  to  discipline, 
iiates  every  disregard  of  the  common  weal  and  every 
glorification  of  the  individual  or  the  individualistic  — 
of  everything,  in  short,  that  is  most  precious  to  the 
artist. 

In  art  it  looks  upon  symbolism  as  an  expression  of 
personal  sensitiveness,  and  dislikes  it  therefor.  Ro- 
manticism, with  its  divinisation  of  passion  and  its  over- 
developed sentimental  life,  is  equally  spurned.  It  be- 
lieves that  the  individual  should  melt  into  the  whole, 
as  proclaimed  by  its  poet,  Jules  Romain.  Its  motto 
is  unanimity.  La  Vie  TJnanime.  It  tends  toward 
classicism,  which  in  France  implies  the  finest  French 
traditions  —  of  the  Louis  XIV  period.  Furthermore 
classicism,  instead  of  relying  on  the  billowing  percep- 
tions of  the  individual,  is  founded  on  the  most  durable 


16  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

part  of  the  human  soul,  on  intelligence  —  a  consolidat- 
ing force. 

As  French  youth  is  attracted  bj  everything  venerable 
in  French  tradition,  it  is  attracted  by  Catholicism.  It 
looks  upon  French  and  Catholic  as  more  or  less  synony- 
mous. The  dogmas  do  not  attract  it  so  much  as  the 
Church,  which  it  considers  a  mysterious,  binding  force 

—  an  inspiration.  It  reveres  Catholicism,  because 
Gothic  art  —  the  architecture  of  France  —  the  Crusades 

—  the  French  achievement  of  the  Middle  Ages  —  and 
Jeanne  d'Arc  —  the  national  heroine  of  France  — 
have  sprung  from  it.  The  youth  of  France  is  attracted 
by  the  Mysteries  of  the  Church. 

I  know  full  well  that  the  self -chosen  chief  of  young 
France,  Gaston  Riou,  is  a  Protestant,  and  that  its  great- 
est man,  Romain  Rolland,  confesses  to  no  creed.  Yet 
the  most  admired  writer  of  young  France,  Maurice 
Barres,  who  made  his  debut  as  an  extreme  individualist, 
is  now  scarcely  less  Catholic  than  Paul  Bourget 
Charles  Peguy,  the  real  leader  of  young  France  and  in 
many  ways  its  central  figure,  worships  the  mysteres,  too. 
He  has  even  written  three  about  Jeanne  d'Arc.  In 
other  days  he  was  the  leader  of  the  Dreyfus  opposition 
and  gave  up  his  studies  at  the  Ecole  Normale  to  found 
the  Cahiers  de  la  Quinzaine  which  were  the  refuge  of 
the  intellectual  aristocracy  of  young  France. 

From  a  political  point  of  view  there  is  a  chasm  be- 
tween Maurice  Barres  and  Charles  Peguy,  but  othe^r- 


FKENCH  YOUTH  lY 

wise  they  have  much  in  common.  The  Lorraine  fervor 
and  mysticism  of  Barres's  recent  book,  La  Colline  In- 
spiree  responds  to  many  of  Charles  Pegny's  patriotic 
stanzas. 

The  youth  of  France  shows  a  decided  return  to  old 
standards,  and  gradual  has  been  its  development  along 
these  new-old  lines. 

The  first  gToup  of  great  writers  who  came  after  the 
Franco-Prussian  War,  men  like  Zola  and  Maupassant, 
hated  war  and  wrote  about  it  to  inspire  hatred  of  it. 

They  expressed  the  general  opinion  of  their  time.  As 
the  eighty-year-old  Michel  Breal,  the  great  philologist, 
said,  "  Those  who  approve  of  war  are  those  who  never 
have  seen  it." 

This  generation  was  followed  by  one  which,  no  matter 
how  it  looked  upon  war  in  the  abstract,  feared  a  war 
with  Germany.  This  feeling  found  expression  in  a 
most  humiliating  way  at  the  time  of  the  Dreyfus  affair. 
Again  and  again  officers  of  importance  remarked  that 
if  such  and  such  an  imaginary  secret  (Emperor 
William's  annotations  on  the  Dreyfus  papers,  for  in- 
stance, and  other  absurdities  of  the  same  sort)  were 
divulged,  war  would  ensue  and  French  soldiers  would 
be  "  led  to  slausrhter." 

After  Agadir  this  feeling  disappeared  and  a  more 
martial  spirit  took  its  place.  It  spread  like  wildfire 
throughout  the  French  nation.  Statesmen,  obviously 
professing  the  desire  to  "  maintain  peace,"  knew  they 


18  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

could  count  on  a  strong  current  of  public  opinion  if 
their  pacifist  efforts  proved  fruitless. 

In  1912,  however,  the  foreigner  visiting  ^France 
found  that  the  finest  of  the  younger  men  and  the  most 
important  functionaries  appreciated  Germany,  and 
were  familiar  with  German  conditions.  They  had  a 
decided  aversion  for  war  and  siticiere  doul>ts  as  to  its 
advantages. 

In  1913  all  this  was  changed.  The  men  one  had 
looked  upon  as  the  most  determined  pacifists,  men  who 
had  expressed  themselves  unreservedly  about  France's 
military  preparation  and  who  had  worked  for  peace; 
authors,  whose  training  w^as  half  German ;  young  func- 
tionaries in  the  ministries  whose  environment  was 
known  to  be  broadminded  and  liberty  loving  —  one 
and  all  had  changed.  They  spoke  of  war,  considered 
it  unavoidable  and  even  looked  upon  it  as  a  purifying 
force.  War  would  renew  France  within  her  bound- 
aries and  incroas',^.  her  ^jresti  without.  As  war  was 
felt  to  be  inevitable,  it  could  only  ^je  avvaited  with 
calm. 

Yet  it  is  strange  to  read  a  recently  published  book 
by  a  young  Frenchman,  Ernest  Psichari:  U  Appel 
des  Armes  —  The  Call  of  Arms.  War  and  the  mili- 
tary career  have  probably  never  been  praised  as  highly 
as  by  this  author,  whose  environment,  birth  and  educa- 
tion would  seem  to  have  pitted  him  against  them. 
Ernest    Psichari    is    Renan's    grandson.     His    grand- 


FREN"CH  YOUTH  19 

father,  the  greatest  Frerch  writer  of  his  daj,  was  a  sort 
of  mediator  between  France  and  Germany  during  the 
war  of  1870  (letters  exchanged  with  David  Strauss), 
and  while  a  great  patriot  he  was  a  decided  pacifist. 
At  the  time  of  the  Dreyfus  affair  the  young  author's 
mother,  Kenan's  only  daughter,  protested  more  passion- 
ately than  any  other  Frenchwoman  against  the  glorifica- 
tion of  the  army  and  its  traditions,  under  the  cover 
of  which  General  Piquart  (an  intimate  friend  of  the 
family)  had  been  vilely  attacked.  Ernest  Psichari  had 
almost  a  vice-father  in  the  childless  Louis  Havet,  who 
was,  perhaps,  the  most  radical  of  all  French  men  of 
science.  If  ever  a  young  man  was  not  brought  up  to 
admire  war  it  was  Ernest  Psichari. 

And  now  comes  this  book,  every  page  radiating  re- 
spect for  the  army  and  its  traditions.  Its  subject  is 
the  soldier's  vocation.  It  is  portrayed  as  the  highest 
and  the  most  beautiful  of  all,  and  the  book,  in  fact,  is 
nothing  but  a  sort  of  hymn  to  war,  against  Germany. 

It  is  a  ciiaraL  eristic  of  the  author's  generation  that 
the  erotic  element  has  but  a  small  place  in  the  book  and 
is  treated  as  an  entirely  negligible  quantity  or  a  waste 
of  time. 

There  are  only  two  main  figures  in  the  book ;  a  forty- 
year-old  captain  of  the  Colonial  Army,  and  a  young 
man  of  twenty  whom  the  older  man  trains  as  a  sol- 
dier. While  a  private  the  latter  is  wounded  in  Mor- 
occo. 


20  THE  WOELD  AT  WAK 

Both  men  are  idealised  figures  but  human  at  the 
same  time.  According  to  the  author's  preface,  the  soul 
of  France  is  in  them  both,  as  it  is  in  Charles  Peguj's 
Youth's  Master.  Both  characters  are  portrayed  with 
sincerity  but  without  great  art.  They  have  simple 
hearts  and  great  souls.  If  France  had  many  such 
officers  and  privates,  she  would  be  the  home  of  a  higher 
humanity. 

The  book  closes  with  a  vision,  brought  in  rather 
cleverl}^,  of  a  character  from  Alfred  de  Vigny's  cele- 
brated book,  Military  Greatness  and  Slavery,  which 
forms  a  background  for  Psichari's  story.  The  officer, 
in  the  dream,  points  out  that  France  of  to-day  swells 
with  something  which  Louis  XVIII's  army  lacked: 
Hatred.     The  intention  is  clear. 


The  provinces  of  Alsace  and  Lorraine  recently  sent 
a  petition  to  France  asking  that  no  thought  of  war  be 
entertained  on  their  account.  No  matter  what  the  out- 
come of  such  a  war  would  be  it  would  ruin  them  com- 
pletely, as  their  economic  existence  depends  on  their 
free  trade  with  Germany.  At  the  meeting  in  Berne, 
members  of  the  French  and  German  parliaments  agreed, 
for  the  first  time  since  1871,  to  try  to  ward  off-^war. 
The  working  classes  both  in  France  and  Germany  di- 
rect all  their  eftorts  (which  are  singularly  limited)  to 
maintaining  peace. 


FEEKCH  YOUTH  21 

Whicli  of  the  two  opposing  forces,  that  of  the  anny 
or  that  of  the  people,  will  prove  itself  most  powerful 
in  the  long  run  ?  * 

*  Ernest  Psichari  was  one  of  the  first  young  officers  to  fall  in 
1914.  Charles  P^guy  fell  the  year  after.  General  Piquart  died 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 


GEKMAN  PATRIOTISM 
(1913) 

Among  the  numerous  pamphlets  published  by  the 
Interparliamentary  Union  in  French  and  German  in 
view  of  creating  better  understanding  among  nations 
and  to  further  the  cause  of  arbitration  in  case  of  war, 
Professor  Otfried  Nippold's  book,  German  Chauvinism, 
is  one  of  the  most  instructive.  The  object  of  the  book 
is  to  show  the  German  reader  that  although  the  native 
press  emphasises  the  bellicose  nationalism  of  neigh- 
bouring states,  Germany,  in  this  respect,  is  equally 
guilty. 

In  France  the  so-called  "  nationalism ''  was  crushed 
theoretically  and  officially  half  a  dozen  years  ago,  but 
in  reality  it  is  intensely  active  at  present.  When 
the  Chamhre  voted  the  law  for  three  years'  com- 
pulsory military  service,  mortal  enemies  from  the  Drey- 
fus affair  like  General  Mercier  and  Joseph  Reinach, 
opponents  of  the  present  political  regime  like  Clemen- 
ceau  as  well  as  its  staunchest  admirers  —  all  alike 
welcomed  and  approved  the  measure.  France  felt  in 
danger,  and  her  people  rallied  in  her  defence,  accept- 
ing sacrifices  it  may  be  hard  for  them  to  live  up  to. 


GEEMAK  PATRIOTISM  23 

But  if  patriotism  is  vibrant  in  France,  it  is  fanatic 
in  Germany.  Great  organisations  like  the  All  German 
Association  (All  Deutscher  Verband),  The  German 
Defence  Association  (Der  Deutsche  Wehrverein),  The 
Naval  Association  (Deutscher  Flottenverein),  Young 
Germany  (Jung  Deutschland),  German  Sports  League 
(Deutsche  Tumerschaft) ,  keep  the  patriotic  flame  burn- 
ing and  train  the  youth  of  Germany  both  physically  and 
mentally  so  as  to  increase  the  fighting  power  of  the 
German  nation. 

The  patriotic  fervour  is  further  stimulated  by  the 
press  —  newspapers  and  magazines  —  by  pamphlets 
and  books.  Many  influential  men  of  affairs  or  political 
leaders  like  the  JSTational-Liberals'  representative,  Bas- 
serman,  writers  like  Maximilian  Harden,  generals  re- 
tired from  active  service  like  Generals  Keim,  Liebert, 
Bernhardi,  Eichhorn,  Wrochem,  and  innumerable 
speakers,  all  conjure  up  and  draw  attention  to  the  dan- 
ger of  war  and  play  upon  it  to  excite  war  enthusiasm. 

One  of  the  many  German  associations,  the  German 
Defence  Association,  although  barely  a  year  old,  al- 
ready numbers  255  local  groups,  has  50,000  active 
members,  and  190,000  members  in  various  afiiliated 
societies.  It  is  proud  of  the  fact  that  the  Government 
has  agreed  to  the  reforms  which  it  has  striven  for  in 
conjunction  with  the  General  Staff*.  General  Keim 
claims  that  every  good  German  ought  to  belong  to  a 
defence  association.     The  defence  associations  are  the 


24  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

cr)^stallisation  of  the  German  people's  defensive  power 
in  their  fight  for  their  ideals. 

The  first  point  worth  noting  in  all  the  theories  ad- 
vanced is  the  fundamental  acceptance  of  the  word 
^'  war  ''  in  Germany.  It  is  apparent  every^vhere.  The 
authors  agree  that  war  is  the  highest  and  holiest  expres- 
sion of  human  activity.  Trousered  old  women,  de- 
crepit, timorous  dotards  call  it  ugly  and  frightful. 
But  war  is  beautiful.  War  is  the  German  people's 
only  salvation.  It  alone  prevents  mental  and  physical 
weakening  and  degeneracy  ^^'ar  is  the  great  cultural 
power  that  creates  and  mainiains  biates.  It  is  a  chain 
in  the  godly  order  of  the  world.  Peace  must  be  recog- 
nised as  a  factor  in  the  development  of  real  culture,  but 
in  view  of  the  dwindling  influence  of  tae  German  ele- 
ment in  Slav  and  Mag}^ar  states  and  its  disappearance 
in  Anglo-Saxon  communities,  cultural  progress  is  of 
less  value  to  Germany  than  military  prowess. 

Without  war  and  continual  preparedness  for  war,  na- 
tions grow  feeble  and  apathetic.  Woe  to  the  nation 
that  is  not  up  to  the  mark!  Woe  to  humanity,  if  it 
imagines  it  can  do  without  its  greatest  benefactor,  the 
only  real  test  of  a  people's  stamina.  Although  the 
struggle  for  existence  wears  individuals  out,  it  is  up- 
building, strengthening,  sustaining,  both  for  man  and 
society,  in  the  form  of  war.  War  does  not  depend  on 
volition.  It  is  as  a  rule  an  independent  elementary 
force,  a  demoniacal  power  that  overwhelms  and  runs 
/ 


GERMAlSr  PATKIOTISM  25 

riot.  All  treaties,  all  attempts  to  preserve  peace,  all 
international  conferences,  have,  no  effect  whatever  on 
it. 

Whicli  great  men  do  the  Germans  glorify?  Goethe, 
Schiller,  Eichard  Wagner,  Carl  Marx? —  .^^o.  --Fred- 
erick the  Great,  Blücher,  Moltke,  Bismarck  .  .  .  hard, 
cold  men  of  blood  and  iron  —  they  who  sacrificed  thou- 
sands of  lives.  They  are  the  objects  of  a  gratitude 
verging  on  adoration.  While  they  should  logically 
be  looked  down  upon,  according  to  social  and  moral 
law,  the  people  revere  and  praise  them,  and  feel  lifted, 
carried  away  by  such  giants  of  bloodshed. 

Germany  in  Arms,  the  Crown  Prince's  recent  book, 
calls  courage  the  highest  expression,  of  manhood.  The 
book  is  a  message  on  manhood,  therefore,  and  heralds  a 
new  era  which  is  but  a  return  to  ancient  standards. 
The  increasing  influence  of  commerce  on  politics  is, 
according  to  a  statement  made  by  the  German.  Chan- 
cellor, a  very  pernicious  thing.  Wealth  creates  a  nerv- 
ously debilitating  love  of  peace ;  it  makes  people  believe 
in  senseless  ideals  of  international  brotherhood ;  it  gives 
birth  to  well-meaning  but  hopeless  peace  fanatics. 
Hence,  all  peace  conferences  must  be  jeered  at,  and  the 
meeting  of  French  and  German  deputies  in  Berne 
loudly  disapproved. 

-  If,  leaving  aside  this  general  view  as  to  the  nature 
of  war  and  its  metaphysical  and  ethical  values,  one 
turns  to  the  various  authors   and  speakers  for  more 


26  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

palpable  proof  of  the  actual -advantages  of  war  for 
Germany,  one  meets  with  the  following  arguments: 

There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  Triple  Entente  is 
determined  to  crrt^t  M.  We  know,  all  of  us,  that 
blood  will  have  to  flow,  sooner  or  later.  The  longer  we 
wait,  the  greater  will  be  the  losses.  We  speak  of  de- 
fending ourselves.  But  a  defensive  attitude  is  equiva- 
lent to  suicide.     Our  salvation  lies  in  offensive,  only. 

An  offensive  war  is  the  only  wise  or  permissible  one. 
It  would  be  a  preventive  war,  since  it  would  not  wait 
for  the  enemy's  attack,  but  obviate  it. 

The  authors  then  dwell  upon  the  different  nations 
of  the  Triple  Entente. 

Eirst  the  French.-— In  France,  the  Germans  claim, 
there  reigns  a  new  spirit,  that  of  self-confidence. 
France  looks  undaunted  upon  the  possibility  of  a  war 
with  Germany.  The  French  even  believe  they  could 
be  victorious.  A  glance  through  the  school  books  of 
France  shows  that  the  children  are  systematically 
brought  up  in  a  chauvinistic  spirit.  French  national- 
ists rejoice  because  the  humanitarian  spirit  has  been 
swept  out  of  the  minds  of  the  younger  generation. 
The  thirst  for  revenge  in  France  makes  the  maintenance 
of  peace  impossible.  Ten  years  ago  the  French  tried 
to  silence  a  man  like  Deroulede  when  he  preached 
revanche.  Xow  the  word  is  used  by  a  semi-official 
paper  like  the  Temps,  by  a  man  like  Millerand.  The 
holy  fire  of  revenge  is  kept  burning  at  the  altar. 


GEEMAN  PATRIOTISM  27 

Even  Kölnische  Zeitung  calls  France  the  ''  disturber 
of  peace." 

And  the  authors  develop  their  idea:  Although  its 
inhabitants  number  only  40,000,000,  after  the  voting 
of  the  new  law  of  three  years'  military  service,  France 
will  have  a  standing  army  as  strong  as  Germany's,  an 
army  better  trained,  with  l^etter  reserves,  reinforced, 
besides,  by  African  troops.  While  France  has  twenty- 
six  million  less  population  than  Germany,  it  has  a  quar- 
ter of  a  million  more  soldiers  and  three  thousand  bet- 
ter trained  officers.  Germany  is  called  sl  nation  in 
arms.  France  is  one.  And  France  is  not  carrying- 
out  military  preparations  on  so  vast  a  scale  without 
reason.  She  must  make  use  of  them,  because  she  can- 
not afford  to  support  them  indefinitely. 

England  encourages  France's  military  preparations 
since  Germany  must  keep  step  with  them,  and  the  heavy 
military  expenditures  incurred  thereby  prevent  Ger- 
many from  actively  increasing  her  fleet.  While  Ger- 
many is  hampered  by  the  cost  of  her  army,  England 
continues  to  build  new  warships  in  Eosyth  and  Dundee, 
and  they  are  destined  to  challenge  one  power  only: 
Germany.  From  all  parts  of  the  world  English  ships 
are  being  called  back  to  the  N'orth  Sea.  The  celebrated 
pacifist  J^orman  A|ngell  came  to  Germany  to  preach 
his  gospel  that  the  gains  of  war  were  purely  illusory. 
Happily  he  w^as  sent  home  before  he  was  able  to  carry 
out  his  plans.     The  Germans  believed  he  was  in  the  pay 


28  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

of  ^'  egotistical  Albion  "  to  fill  Germany  with  ''  interna- 
tional poison." 

Lastly  Russia.  A  war  with  Russia  now  seems  more 
imminent  than  a  war  with  England.  The  time  seems 
to  be  drawing  near  for  the  great  clash  between  the 
German  and  the  Slav.  The  changes  in  the  Balkans, 
after  ihe  Balkan  War,  oblige  the  Hapsburg  monarchy 
to  fight  for  its  very  existence.  While  France  regards 
Berlin  as  her  enemy  and  hopes  to  win  back  her  lost 
provinces,  Russia  challenges  Vienna  and  wants  to  break 
up  the  Austro-Hungarian  state.  Germany,  of  course, 
must  stand  by  Austria,  because  Austria  represents  the 
German  element. 

Italy  cannot  be  counted  on.  Owing  to  her  immense 
coast  line,  Italy  can  never  become  an  effective  ally 
against  England.  Italy  at  war  with  England  is  an 
absurd  impossibility. 

But  quite  apart  from  her  situation  in  regard  to  the 
Triple  Entente,  Germany  must  go  to  war  to  satisfy 
her  thii3!it  for  land. 

"Our  borders  are  too  small,"  says  General  Keim; 
"  we  must  create  a  thirst  for  land  or  we  will  lose  our 
rank,  become  a  crippled  nation."  Other  writers  claim 
they  cannot  see  why  "  the  world  should  be  made  only 
for  the  English,  French,  Russians  and  Japanese,  and 
why  we  alone  should  be  satisfied  by  the  territory  which 
was,  from  /!  e  beginning,  oui*  allotted  portion."  In 
1871  Bismarck  thought  that  Germany  had  acquired  all 


GERMAISr  PATETOTISM  29 

the  land  she  needed.  "  But  years  have  passed  and  con- 
ditions have  changed  since  then.  ISTow  we  must  have 
land;  colonies  of  our  own  are  our  only  safeguard  for 
the  future.'^  A  university  professor,  Graf  de  Moulin 
Eckhart,  adds,  in  an  outburst  of  anger  at  the  Kaiser's 
pacifist  attitude :  "  Few  German  emperors  have  un- 
derstood the  people.  Germany  has  become  great  in 
spite  of  its  emperors/' 

In  fact,  German  diplomacy,  the  Emperor,  and  the 
chancellor  receive  but  scant  praise  from  the  leaders  of 
the  war  faction.  All  deplore  unanimously  what  they 
call  the  "  wanton  and  weak  foreign  policy  in  Morocco." 
And  as  the  peace  party  also  deplores  the  bungling  of  the 
Morocco  incidents,  especially  the  purposeless  trip  of 
the  Panther  to  Agadir,  and  military  leaders  demand 
reparation  for  the  Moroccan  insult,  German  diplomacy 
is,  at  the  present  moment,  most  decidedly  out  of  favour. 

Among  provocative  political  expressions  the  most  de- 
cided are  certain  official  and  semi-official  remarks  about 
France.  At  an  anniversary  in  St.  Privat  in  August, 
1909,  a  military  clergyman  of  high  standing  made  a 
speech  brimming  over  with  hatred  to  France,  and  at 
the  German  Women's  Congress  in  Berlin,  1912,  the 
rector  of  the  Berlin  University  called  France  the 
"  hereditary  enemy." 

ISTevertheless,  it  may  be  said  that  just  as  nine  tenths 
of  the  population  of  France  wishes  to  maintain  peace 
and  is  willing  to  prove  this  by  its  actions,  provided  it 


30  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

could  feel  assured  that  Germany  would  not  attack  it, 
the  majority  of  Germany's  thrifty  population  no  doubt 
feel  that  nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  a  war  with  the 
Western  neighbour. 

Unfortunately  France  has  never  quite  recovered 
from  the  humiliation  of  1870.  Besides,  in  both  coun- 
tries an  active  campaig-n  is  carried  on  to  excite  na- 
tional fanaticism. 

The  celebrated  author,  Ludwig  Thoma,  a  former 
contributor  to  Simplicissimus,  an  active  defender  of 
better  understanding  between  nations,  calls  the  sensa- 
tional press  allegations,  "  a  mosaic  of  base,  distorted 
lies."  But  he  adds,  "  these  allegations  are  repeated 
and  repeated  until  they  are  accepted  as  the  truth,  and 
public  opinion  is  poisoned  by  them,  drop  by  drop,  until 
it  loses  all  power  of  resistance." 

Isaac  Disraeli  wrote,  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  when 
governments  want  war  the  most  abusive  slander  is 
published  to  stir  up  the  passion  of  the  nation,  to  rouse 
it  to  vote  war  credits. 

The  real  menace  to  peace  does  not  lie  in  spoken  or 
written  words,  however.  It  would  seem  to  lie  elsewhere 
—  in  the  great  Powers'  military  forces,  for  instance. 
Each  nation  has  a  large  staff  of  highly  educated  officers 
whose  business  it  is  to  remain  silent  and  obey,  but  who 
nevertheless  exert  influence  and  pressure  on  public 
opinion.  An  officer  is  a  man  whose  business  is  war. 
An    officer    who    hasn't    smelled    powder    is    a    man 


GERMAN  PATRIOTISM  31 

who  hasn't  showTi  his  mettle,  and  who,  as  the  years 
pass,  may  be  compared  to  the  sailor  who  has  never  been 
to  sea  —  an  absurdity.  The  officer's  patriotism  quite 
naturally  has  a  warlike  tinge ;  he  is,  besides,  anxious  to 
show  what  stuff  he  is  made  of;  he  longs  for  advance- 
ment, wants  to  win  other  laurels  than  those  to  be  gained 
at  manoeuvres. 

The  military  staffs  of  European  countries  are  per- 
haps a  greater  hindrance  to  maintaining  peace  than  the 
assembled  mass  of  war  authors  and  journalists. 


•N 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  CAUSES  OF  THE 
WORLD  WAR 

(August,  1914) 

In  March,  1913,  the  French  review,  Le  Courrier 
Europeen,  asked  me  if  I  would  give  mj  opinion  on  the 
outlook  for  world  peace.  "  It  is  usually  admitted," 
the  letter  explained,  ^'  that  political  economists,  busi- 
ness men  as  well  as  thinkers,  are  opposed  to  war,  not  as 
a  matter  of  sentiment  but  of  expediency.  War  is  al- 
ways a  disaster  —  even  to  the  victor.  Besides,  the 
commerce,  industry,  and  finances  of  the  great  Powers 
in  our  day  are  so  intertwined  that  a  great  war  between 
them  would  be  nothing  short  of  madness." 

Although  I  do  not  as  a  rule  answer  questionnaires, 
it  is  difficult  to  refuse  a  paper  of  which  one  is  honorary 
editor.     I  therefore  replied: 

"  A  great  war  would  undoubtedly  be  madness,  but 
unfortunately  very  few  matters  in  this  world  depend  on 
reason.  As  Disraeli  remarked.  Mormon  has  more  dis- 
ciples than  Bentham.  Since  Voltaire  advanced  the 
idea,  Jan  de  Bloch,  an  unusually  able  business  man, 
was  probably  the  first  to  develop  the  theory  preached  by 
Norman  Angell  that  a  great  war  benefits  neither  vic- 

32 


THE  FUI^DAMEIN'TAL  CAUSES  33 

tor  nor  vanquished  but  always  carries  with  it  ruin  and 
misery. 

"  In  all  comitries  most  of  the  population  is  peace 
loving,  if  not  pacifist.  As  a  rule  only  officers  and  am- 
munition-makers wish  war.  And  yet  experience  has 
shown  how  easy  it  is  to  excite  war  enthusiasm,  and  I  do 
not  believe  it  will  be  possible  to  do  away  with  war  or 
render  it  less  frequent  through  any  appeal  to  reason. 
The  matter  is  not  simple,  for  Europe  is  still  in  a  state 
of  mediaivalism. 

"  Besides,  war  sometimes  entails  advantages.  Eor 
instance,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  Italy  could  have  become 
one  united  kingdom  without  bloodshed,  and  yet  most 
Italians  and  other  people  regard  Italy's  unity  as  a  de- 
cided advantage.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  Germany 
could  have  become  a  powerful  nation  without  war  be- 
tween the  two  states,  each  wishing  to  dominate  —  Aus- 
tria and  Prussia.  Austria's  exclusion  from  the  Ger- 
man alliance  was  a  decisive  factor  in  creating  the  new 
German  Empire  which  satisfies  most  Germans. 

"  Japan  could  not  have  become  a  world  power  with- 
out the  war  against  Eussia.  As  long  as  Japan  excelled 
in  the  arts  of  peace  alone,  she  was  ignored  by  Europe. 
Europe  began  to  respect  the  Japanese  only  when  she 
discovered  they  were  her  equals  in  brutality,  and  were 
armed  with  the  courage  which  does  not  flinch  at  self- 
destruction  and  with  the  ruthlessness  which  does  not 
hesitate  at  sacrificing  others.     Most  assuredly  the  vie- 


34  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

tory  over  Russia  did  not  increase  Japan's  well-being, 
but  it  has  given  her  a  most  valuable  self-confidence  and 
Europe's  unqualified  admiration. 

"  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  if  war  does  not  in- 
crease the  prosperity  of  the  world,  but  on  the  contrary 
fills  it  with  misery  and  evils  of  most  appalling  kinds, 
it  sometimes  —  because  of  the  barbarity  of  our  social 
conditions  —  entails  immeasurable  advantages. 

"  A  great  European  war  would  be  an  overwhelming 
tragedy  for  all  concerned.  Yet,  in  recent  years  many 
people  have  come  to  look  upon  such  a  war  as  inevitable, 
and  some,  even,  seem  naively  confident  that  it  would 
usher  in  a  reign  of  justice.  I  have  met  with  this  theory 
in  France  and  Austria-Hungary. 

''  Statistics  showing  war's  absurdity  are  of  little  use. 
They  convince  only  those  who  know  how  to  think. 
Humanity  in  the  mass  is  trained  to  obey  when  com- 
manded, and  is  led  by  passion  and  imagination.  It  is 
bestial  at  bottom,  although  easily  roused  to  enthusiasm ; 
it  is  often  heroic  in  its  self-abnegation  and  devotion, 
but,  whether  bestial  or  sublime,  quite  unamenable  to 


At  the  present  moment  five  great  European  powers 
are  tearing  Europe  with  "  murderlust  "  and  destructive 
rage,  while  each  one  proclaims  its  love  of  peace  and  its 
desire  to  maintain  it.     Each  one  clamours  its  craving 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  CAUSES  35 

for  justice.  While  the  great  Powers  have  been  crush- 
ing a  couple  of  small  states,  a  sixth  Asiatic  power  has 
also  entered  the  ring,  with  the  immediate  object  of  tak- 
ing the  German  colony  of  Kiao-chow,  but  naturally  its 
ultimate  object  is  vaster.  .  .  . 

The  priests  of  the  various  Christian  confessions  pray 
for  the  blessings  of  Heaven  upon  their  armies.  Science 
and  all  inventions  of  benefit  to  himianity,  all  humanity's 
genius,  are  now  in  the  pay  of  bloodshed  and  murderous 
passion.  Even  the  glory  of  the  new  century,  the  con- 
quest of  the  air,  is  exclusively  employed  to  serve  what 
in  former  days  was  called  the  devil  —  spying  and  bomb- 
throwing.  The  aviator  knows  how  to  bombard;  the 
soldier  how  to  bring  down  the  aviator,  riddling  his 
machine  with  bullets  —  while  heavy  cannon  and  light 
cannon,  machine  guns  and  perfected  rifles,  massacre 
human  beings  by  the  tens  of  thousands,  and  bombs 
wreck  city  after  city.  Torpedoes,  mines,  submarines, 
destroy  the  marvellously  equipped  warships  and  their 
crews. 

Blood  cries  out  to  Heaven.  Hell  spreads  over  the 
earth ;  it  crackles  in  the  air,  roars  and  rages  on  the  sea. 

Only  one  Power  whose  participation  was  expected 
has  prudently  remained  outside.  Italy  seized  the  in- 
significant pretext  that  Germany  declared  war  instead 
of  waiting  for  a  declaration  from  mobilising  Russia, 
to  leave  her  allies  in  the  lurch.  After  having  reaped 
every   possible    advantage   from   the    Triple   Alliance 


36  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

(Tripolis,  Rhodes),  Italy's  leading  men  deserted  at  the 
decisive  moment. 

In  a  sense  ehis  was  not  surprising.  Machiavelli 
was  an  Italian.  It  was  not  surprising  in  another  sense, 
for  public  sentiment  in  Italy  was  decidedly  anti-Aus- 
trian. Besides,  after  England  joined  the  Triple  En- 
tente nothing  else  could  be  expected.  In  August,  1913, 
I  wrote :  "  Italy  cannot  be  counted  on.  With  her  im- 
mense coast  line  to  guard,  Italy  as  an  ally  against  Great 
Britain  is  inconceivable." 

Like  the  other  Powers,  Italy  has  her  own  ends  in 

view,   and  hopes   to  see  her  neutrality  rewarded  by 

Trieste. 

*  *  * 

Since  1870,  and  until  very  recently,  France  wanted 
nothing  hwt  peace.  The  defeat  of  that  year  convinced 
the  people  of  Germany's  military  superiority,  and  even 
thirty  years  afterwards  their  belief  in  it  was  so  great 
that  at  the  time  of  the  Dreyfus  affair  French  generals 
and  men  of  high  standing  declared  that  war  with  Ger- 
many would  be  fatal  to  France. 

In  1912  a  change  had  crept  into  the  French  attitude, 
however.  Confidence  in  the  army  had  been  restored. 
People  spoke  with  assurance  of  the  army's  equipment 
and  France's  preparedness  for  war ;  in  many  circles  the 
French  army  was  even  considered  capable  of  challeng- 
ing Germany's.  Germany's  actions  at  Agadir  had 
caused   the  greatest  resentment   in   France,    and   the 


THE  FUISTDAMENTAL  CAUSES  37 

French  press  frequently  hinted  that  just  as  the  army 
created  by  Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia  was  com- 
pletely destroyed  by  Napoleon  forty  years  later,  so  Wil- 
liam I's  army  would  be  destroyed,  now.  Yet  in  1912 
the  intellectual  elite  of  France  was  still  entirely  paci- 
fist. First  of  all,  for  purely  humanitarian  reasons. 
War  was  looked  upon  as  barbarous.  Besides,  in  these 
circles,  many  were  tied  by  bonds  of  personal  or  artistic 
sympathy  to  Germans,  and  many,  familiar  with  the 
civil  administration  of  France,  had  little  confidence  in 
her  military  organisation. 

In  1913,  however,  another  change  had  taken  place. 
Belief  in  the  maintenance  of  peace  seemed  to  have 
vanished.  War  was  inevitable  —  why  not  look  facts 
in  the  face  ?  Why  have  it  hanging  over  like  a  threat- 
ening cloud  ?  Even  as  high  an  authority  as  the  presi- 
dent of  the  Seine  Council,  who  a  year  before  had  be- 
lieved in  peace,  now  foresaw  war  without  regret.  Even 
the  author  who  knew  and  understood  Germany  better 
than  any  one  else,  Eomain  EoUand,  approved  of  war 
and  awaited  it  with  confidence. 

A  cabinet  officer,  whose  family  and  associations  are 
reputed  for  their  radicalism  and  passionate  anti-mili- 
taristic tendencies,  said  to  me,  "  My  greatest  desire  is 
to  live  to  shoulder  my  rifle  and  start  for  the  front.** 
One  of  the  directors  in  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs, a  man  who  selects  the  candidates  for  the  vari- 
ous embassies   and  consulates,   a  minister  plenipoten- 


38  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

tiary,  said :  "  We  must  have  war ;  we  cannot  make  any 
headway  without  it.  It  will  cleanse  us,  drive  all  dis- 
cord and  petty  rivalries  out  of  our  spirit,  and  awaken 
France  to  new  life." 

When  such  men  desired  war,  it  was  evident  that,  in 
spite  of  the  Socialists,  war  was  looked  upon  as  a  possi- 
bility. 

It  seemed  almost  symbolic  that  the  grandchild  of  the 
great  pacifist  Renan,  Ernest  Psichari,  should  speak  of 
war  with  Germany  as  a  ''  holy  war." 

And  then  Charles  Humbert,  the  publicist,  came  with 
his  startling  revelations  as  to  the  military  unprepared- 
ness  of  France.  Most  of  the  billions  appropriated  for 
defence  had  apparently  slipped  into  the  pockets  ot,  pri- 
vate persons. 

Jaures  was  the  only  man  in  public  life  who  stub- 
bornly believed  in  peace.  The  conviction  cost  him  his 
popularity,  and  he  fell,  assassinated,  a  martyr  for  paci- 
fism. 

*  ■)(•  -x- 

During  this  same  period  patriotic  passion  ran  riot 
in  Germany.  The  nation  was  convinced  that  if  Ger- 
many was  disliked  it  was  because  of  her  virtues,  her 
initiative,  her  amazing  development,  her  industry. 
This  hatred  felt  by  other  nations  for  Germany  was 
looked  upon  as  the  basest  of  all,  being  founded  on  envy 
and  spite.  Economic  conditions  obliged  Germany  to 
pursue  an  imperialistic  policy,  and  she  felt  entitled  to 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  CAUSES  39 

supplant  England  as  the  ruling  power  in  Europe.  Ger- 
many believed  in  her  ethical  right  to  take  whatever 
might  be  necessary  to  satisfy  her  national  ambition,  and 
her  belief  was  strengthened  by  a  deep-rooted  convic- 
tion that  both  France  and  England  were  unworthy  of 
their  rank.     Both  were  said  to  be  degenerating. 

Many  German  military  associations  fostered  a  mar- 
tial spirit  among  the  young.  It  was  due  to  them,  per- 
haps, that  1,800,000  men  enlisted  as  volunteers  within  a 
week  after  tlie  declaration  of  war.  The  French  are  a 
nation  of  fighters,  but  they  are  not  pugnacious  by 
temperament  like  the  Germans.  When  in  1900  it  was 
announced  in  Paris  that  the  attack  on  the  allied  am- 
bassadors in  Pekin  demanded  revenge,  120  men  en- 
rolled voluntarily,  while  the  officers  demanded  that 
their  pay  be  increased  beyond  that  of  colonial  war- 
fare. Urbain  Gohier,  the  writer,  complained  bitterly 
about  this.  In  Germany,  at  the  same  time,  the  an- 
nouncement brought  130,000  volunteers,  and  instead 
of  demanding  higher  pay  the  officers  vied  with  each 
other  in  being  allowed  to  participate. 

*  *  * 

The  Russians  hate  the  Germans  for  their  virtues  as 
much  as  for  their  less  estimable  qualities.  For  cen- 
turies men  of  German  descent  have  played  a  promi- 
nent part  in  St.  Petersburg,  and  the  Russiajis  have 
witnessed  this  with  growing  irritation.  Although  the 
Russians  have  learnt  much  from  the  Germans,  they  are 


40  THE  WOKLD  AT  WAR 

not  grateful.  The  Baltic  nobility  has  made  itself  sin- 
cerely hated  in  Lifland  and  Estland.  In  return,  the 
Russians  have  denationalised  the  old  German  univer- 
sity at  Dorpat.  The  methodic  German  mind  is  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  the  Russian's  unmethodical  intelli- 
gence. But,  first  and  last,  Russians  regret  the  short- 
sighted policy  of  Nicholas  I,  and  even  more  that  of 
Alexandre  II,  which  strengthened  Germany's  position. 
Nicholas  I  helped  the  Hapsburgs  to  quell  the  Hun- 
garian rebellion,  while  Alexandre  II,  v^'itliout  any  re- 
gard for  the  menace  to  Russia's  bordcM  ,  allowed  the 
Germans  to  crush  and  mut'late  France.  And,  when 
discussing  Germany's  unity  and  increasing  military 
strength,  Russians  frequently  conclude  with  the  words, 
Alexandre  II  fecit. 

And  just  as  the  Prussian  and  the  South  German 
spirit  —  that  is  the  small-state  spirit  of  the  former  Ger- 
man confederation  —  grew  into  Germanism  and  this 
gTadually  developed  into  a  spirit  of  aggressive  Pan-Ger- 
manism, so  the  Slavophile  element  in  Russia  created 
a  spirit  of  Pan-Slavism.  Pan-Slavism  was  finally 
erected  in  opposition  to  Pan-Germanism,  and  the  op- 
position between  Russia  and  Germanism  in  the  two 
great  empires  grew  into  the  conflict  between  Slavism 
and  Germanism;  into  the  struggle  between  Slavs  and 
Teutons  for  the  supremacy  of  the  world. 

Yet  Russia's  attacV  is  directed  on  Austria  rather 
than  on  Germany.     The  changes  in  the  Balkan  penin- 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  CAUSES  41 

sula  have  obliged  the  Hapsburg  monarchy  to  fight  for 
its  life. 

Eor  although  Austria's  great  81  ^'v  population  is 
Polish  in  Galicia  and  Tcheque  in  Bohemia,  it  is  pure 
Serbian  in  Bosnia  Herzegovina.  And  when  Serbia, 
having  gained  assurance  by  her  success  in  the  Balkan 
War,  began  to  stretch  out  her  arms  toward  Austria's 
recently  annexed  provinces  whose  feeling  is  quite  Ser- 
bian, Austria,  fearing  complications  from  the  Serbs 
within  her  empire,  decided  once  for  all  to  crush  Serbia's 
ambitions. 

Although  Russia  abuses  and  brutally  oppresses  Poles 
and  Ruthenians  within  her  boundaries,  she  poses, 
outside  her  own  territory,  as  the  fair  champion  and  de- 
fender of  the  Slavs.  And  unless  she  were  willing  to 
lose  her  prestige  and  shatter  this  beautiful  illusion,  she 
could  not  allow  Austria  to  attack  and  humiliate  Serbia. 

While  France  aspires  to  win  back  the  provinces  lost 
in  1871  and  turns  her  resentment  toward  Berlin,  Rus- 
sia's hatred  is  directed  toward  Vienna  and  her  ambition 
is  to  break  up  Austria's  power  and  to  dominate  the  Slav 
element  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  empire.  Russia  at- 
tacks Germany,  because  Germany  backs  Austria  as 
representative  of  Germanism. 

*  *  -Sf 

England  is  different.  Austria  is  a  secondary  con- 
sideration to  England.  The  "  "'valry  between  England 
and  Germany  alone  has  made  the  world  war  possible. 


42  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

This  rivalry  is  something  entirely  new.  For  cen- 
turies England  and  France,  and  England  and  Russia 
have  been  opposed  to  each  other  as  racially  irreconcil- 
able. England  and  France  warred  incessantly  dur- 
ing the  Middle  Ages  and  in  ISJ'apoleonic  days.  They 
were  on  the  verge  of  a  break  as  recently  as  in  1898  at 
the  time  of  the  Fashoda  incident«.  Yet  now  their  past 
differences  are  forgotten,  and  they  have  joined  forces 
and  seem  to  have  come  to  a  real  understanding. 

England  and  Russia  seem  even  more  fundamentally 
opposed  than  England  and  France.  They  clashed  in 
the  Crimean  War ;  they  have  frequently  had  conflicting 
interests  in  Asia.  In  race,  form  of  government,  and 
religion  they  are  direct  opposites.  Yet  this  has  not 
prevented  their  present  agreement. 

England  and  Germany,  on  th«  other  hand,  have  been 
the  best  of  friends  throughout  the  centuries. 

The  Germans  have  admired  English  poetry  and 
science  most  sincerely.  Goethe  worshipped  Shake- 
speare; Haeckel,  Darwin;.  Gervinius  praised  English 
executive  ability  and  political  temperament  as  re- 
flected in  Shakespeare.  Many  English  writers,  like 
Coleridge,  have  shown  traces  of  German  influence,  and 
have  even  admired  Prussianism  as  manifested  by  the 
Corporal  King,  the  great  Frederick's  father.  Carlyle 
wrote  what  one  might  almost  call  a  hymn  to  him,  prais- 
ing him  as  the  man  who  made  order  out  of  chaos, 
and  Carlyle  called  Goethe  the  greatest  of  the  great. 


THE  FUlsTDAMEI^TAL  CAUSES  43 

Many   Britons   admired   Germany   at  tlie   expense   of 
France. 

In  both  countries  most  of  the  inhabitants  are  of 
Germanic  origin,  to  which  Celtic  blood  is  added  in  Eng- 
land, Slav  in  Germany.  Both  languages  are  Germanic 
and  closely  related.  Both  nations  have  a  majority  of 
Protestants,  a  minority  of  Koman  Catholics.  In  the 
past  they  have  frequently  been  allies  against  France. 
At  Waterloo  the  victory  was  due  to  their  assembled 
armies. 

Until  now,  the  two  nations  have  never  made  war  on 
each  other.  Yet  the  new  century  has  witnessed  a  ten- 
sion arise  between  them  and  grow  so  violent  that 
upon  two  previous  occasions  it  almost  broke  into  war. 
The  first  time  —  after  Tangiers  —  war  was  avoided 
because  France  was  unprepared;  and  the  second  time 
—  after  Agadir  —  because  Germany  retreated  at  the 
decisive  moment. 

^  *  * 

Germany's  increasing  sea  power  has,  of  course,  been 
the  cause  of  this  tension.  As  long  as  England  ruled 
over  the  best  parts  of  the  world  and  maintained  her 
supremacy  at  sea,  the  Island  Empire  was  satisfied  and 
desired  no  change  in  the  situation.  Germany,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  youthful  climber,  was  dissatisfied  and 
longed  for  radically  different  conditions,  and  accused 
the  older  Power  of  monopolising  the  place  in  the  sun- 
light to  which  the  youthful  Power  felt  entitled. 


44  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

And  as  this  tension  developed  the  fundamental  dif- 
ferences between  the  two  peoples,  united  by  race  and 
language,  became  apparent.  There  was  the  opposition 
between  liberalism  and  autocracy,  between  civilian  spirit 
and  militarism,  between  a  people  who  do  not  begrudge 
others  free  trade  and  who  believe  in  liberty  and  inde- 
pendent government  and  a  people  waxed  rich  on  pro- 
tection, dominated  by  the  Junkers  and  their  bureau- 
cracy. In  England  an  independent  press  and  a  gov- 
ernment responsible  to  the  people;  in  Germany  a  semi- 
official press,  a  government  responsible  only  to  the 
kaiser  and  a  kaiser  responsible  only  to  God.  This  op- 
position is,  of  course,  only  a  hidden,  fundamental  cause; 
it  has  never  figured  as  the  reason  of  any  deünite  break 
or  misunderstanding. 

Germany's  dissatisfaction  may  be  summed  up  in  few 
words.  OpTi  ^ny  needed  ar»  outlet  for  her  to*-»  numer- 
ous population.  .*''-ii'  liud  prcvi^»usly  allowed  her  peo- 
ple to  emigrate  to  America,  but  tlic  twenty  million  in- 
habitants the  United  States  thereby  gained  were  prac- 
tically lost  to  the  mother  country.  So  Germany, 
pressed  by  the  need  of  expansion,  looked  about  for  col- 
onies of  her  own.  But  she  found  that  everything  worth 
while  had  already  been  taken  and  very  frequently  Eng- 
land stood  in  her  way.  And  the  new,  growing  empire 
began  to  believe  that  England  purposely  thwarted  its 
colonial  ambitions.  Yet  Germany  herself,  twenty-five 
years  ago,  had  no  thought  of  colonial  expansion.      A 


THE  FUI^DAMEIS^TAL  CAUSES  45 

gerperation  ago  Germany  was  personified  by  Bismarck, 
and  Bismarck  did  not  want  colonies  which  he  looked 
upon  as  a  snare  or  a  danger.  He  encouraged  the 
French  in  Africa,  hoping  to  make  them  forget  Alsace, 
aud  sent  them  to  Tunis  and  Madagascar  and  received, 
therefor,  Barthelemy  de  St.  Hilaire's  truly  imbecile 
thanks. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  call  a  politician  like  Bismarck 
shortsighted.     But  he  himself  limited  the  scope  of  his 
life  work,  and  if  Germany  now  suffers  from  a  thirst  for 
land,  not  England,  but  Bismarck,  is  to  blame. 
*  *  * 

If  the  English  have  viewed  Germany  with  disfavour, 
it  is  largely  because  their  ignorance  of  the  German 
people  made  them  particularly  receptive  to  the  cam- 
paign of  the  nationalistic  press.  A  man  like  Maxe,  for 
instance,  in  his  National  Review,  has  for  half  a  dozen 
years  designated  Germany  as  the  enemy.  As  a  sub- 
ject, German  is  scarcely  taught  in  English  schools  and 
universities.  In  all  Scotland  there  is  not  one  chair  of 
Germanic  language  and  literature.  In  England  there 
is  one  -^  in  Cambridge.  It  is  held  by  the  able  and 
distinguished  Professor  Karl  Breul,  but  this  chair  was 
endowed  by  a  rich  German  merchant.  The  ignorance 
of  German  is  so  great  in  England  that  out  of  one  hun- 
dred members  of  the  House  of  Commons  ninety-five 
do  not  know  one  word  of  the  language. 

Yet  ignorance  is  not  the  essence  of  the  Anglo-Germau 


46  THE  WOELD  AT  WAK 

quarrel,  for  the  hatred  is  most  violent  in  Germany  and 
there  English  is  extensively  known. 

For  forty-four  years  Gei-many  has  appeared  peace 
loving,  if  we  except  Bismarck's  plan  to  crush  France  in 
1875,  frustrated  by  Gortschakoff's  intervention.  This 
is  not  particularly  meritorious  of  Germany,  for  a  war 
would  have  ruined  her  growing  commerce,  and  besides 
it  was  unnecessary  as  Germany  has  been  the  undis- 
puted ruler  of  the  Continent  for  twenty-five  years. 

Her  naval  ambitions,  however,  caused  unrest  in  Eng- 
land. The  Germans  augmented  their  navy  feverishly 
and  passionately,  worked  on  it  night  and  day  —  it 
seemed  as  if  they  wished  to  wrench  the  doniinion  of  the 
sea  away  from  England.  Xow  supremacy  at  sea  is 
essential  to  the  Island  Empire.  Aside  from  the  fact 
that  Great  Britain  is  an  Asiatic,  African,  Australian, 
and  [N^orth  American  Power  quite  as  much  as  a  Euro- 
pean one,  the  object  of  the  navy  is  to  safeguard  Eng- 
land's sustenance  and  to  prevent  the  mother  country 
from  being  starved  or  humiliated. 

In  the  past  England  has  systematically  destroyed 
every  navy  which  could  menace  Great  Britain  or  be 
used  against  the  empire  (as  Denmark's).  In  this  way 
England  annihilated  the  Spanish,  Dutch,  French,  and 
Danish  fleets.  England's  position  as  a  world  Power 
would  have  been  changed  if  she  had  allowed  Germany 
to  increase  and  again  increase  her  fleet. 

For  while  it  might  be  said  that  England  need  only 


THE  FÜI^DAMENTAL  CAUSES  47 

build  two  ships  for  every  one  of  Germany's,  the  Eng- 
lish taxpayer  in  the  long  run  could  not  stand  such  a 
strain,  nor  could  England  —  who  does  not  want  con- 
scription —  find  enough  men  to  man  all  these  ships. 

England,  therefore,  felt  Germany's  growing  navy 
as  ,a  challenge.  In  England  a  large  army  would  have 
been  an  offensive  weapon ;  the  navy,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  defensive,  as  it  safeguards  the  nation's  food  supply. 
In  Germany  a  large  army  is  defensive,  needed  to  guard 
the  long  frontiers,  against  Eussia  on  the  one  side  and 
France  on  the  other.  But  the  immense,  admirably 
constructed  and  equipped  fleet  is  principally  an  of- 
fensive weapon. 

It  is  true  that  the  English  have  always  ignored  Ger- 
many's national  needs.  Germany  must  have  coaling 
stations  and  ports  throughout  tht;  globe.  As  things  are 
now  a  German  steamer,  even  at  half  speed,  cannot  reach 
the  German  possessions  in  the  Pacific  Ocean.  This,  of 
course,  is  galling  to  a  great  Power,  and  it  is  foolish  of 
England  to  refuse  Germany  coaling  stations. 

A  German  invasion  of  England  has  been  a  bugbear 
created  by  English  nationalists,  but  the  German  army 
does  not  have  to  cross  the  Channel  in  order  to  menace 
England.  An  attack  through  Belgium  and  France  — 
as  the  present  one  —  and  —  after  victorious  battles  — 
the  annexation  of  Belgium  would  be  a  death  blow^  to 
England's  world  supremacy. 

Intellectually  the  German  would  seem  a  citizen  of 


48  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

the  world.  His  nationality  is  rapidly  absorbed  by  the 
foreign  community  where  he  resides;  he  becomes  a 
North  American,  a  Hungarian,  or  a  Russian  within 
one  geiieriition.  While  the  Englishman  always  retains 
his  racial  characteristics,  the  German,  like  the  Scandi- 
navian, loses  his. 

,^  Intellectually,  then,  the  German  seems  a  cosmopoli- 
tan. He  translates  and  absorbs  everything  worth 
knowing,  also  everything  English.  Shakespeare  is 
played  more  often  and  given  better  productions  in  Ger- 
many than  in  England ;  Darvvin  has  been  quite  adopted ; 
Wilde  and  Shaw  are  more  popular  in  Germany  than  in 
England.  And  as  a  cosmopolitan  the  German  seems 
a  radical.  Thinkers  like  Haeckel  and  Xietzsche  are 
more  admired  than  philosophers  like  Eucken,  James,  or 
Bergson;  but  from  a  political  point  of  view,  even 
the  most  radical  German  professor  is  a  conservative, 
and  the  spiked  helmet  is  dearer  to  him  than  all  the  red 
bonnets  in  the  world.  Even  in  Russia  the  universi- 
ties are  the  centres  of  the  Opposition,  but  German  uni- 
versities are  highly  conservative;  members  of  the  op- 
posing political  factions  are  not  appointed  nor  pro- 
moted. 

Therefore,  in  his  own  home,  the  German  is  not  a 
cosmopolitan.  Within  the  German  Empire  as  well  as 
in  Austria-Hungar>^  he  asserts  his  nationalism  witL'Un- 
bounded  self-sufficiency  and  oppresses  with  an  unruffled 
conscience   Danes,    Pole.-',    Frenchmen,    Tcheques,    Ru- 


THE  FU:N'DAMENTAL  causes  49 

manians,  and  Serbs,  when,  as  defeated  peoples,  they  are 
found  within  the  two  empires. 

For  a  long  time  German  and  Prussian  were  consid- 
ered antithetical  terms.  The  German  was  supposed  to 
be  warm,  good  natured,  sentimental,  usually  poetic, 
musical,  and  dreamy,  while  the  Prussian  was  stiff, 
obsequious,  cold,  precise,  and  methodical.  Since  Prus- 
sia succeeded  in  disciplining  Germany,  however,  the 
whole  people  bear  the  Prussian  imprint.  Undoubtedly 
Germany  for  the  last  forty  years  has  appeared  to  be  a 
peaceful  nation ;  the  Kaiser  theoretically  favoured  peace, 
and  the  Socialists  tried  to  guarantee  it  in  some  practical 
manner,  but  stronger  forces  have  been  at  work  to  foment 
war  —  militan'  industries  J  ike  Krupp,  for  instance, 
and  thousands  of  officers  whose  business  is  war.  Not  in 
vain  did  the  Kaiser  in  his  speech  in  July,  1900,  set  the 
warfare  of  the  Huns  up  as  an  example.  The  plunder- 
ing of  Pekin  by  the  allies  that  year  was  a  burning 
shame. 

Prussia  is  a  military  nation  —  military  in  its  history 
and  tradition.  All  history  as  taught  in  Prussia  centres 
around  Rossbach,  Waterloo,  and  Sedan.  Prussia's 
characteristic,  like  Sparta's,  is  to  be  a  nation  of 
fighters,  and  it  has  set  that  stamp  on  all  Ger- 
many. ISTever  have  ideals  been  more  military  than  in 
Germany  at  the  present  moment,  while  Germany's 
army,  organisation,  and  equipment  are  the  finest  in  the 
wor^r».     If  Englaüd  had  seriously  considered  crushing 


50  THE  WORLD  AT  WAK 

Germany  she  would  have  had  to  introduce  conscription. 
At  the  present  moment  her  army  is  of  slight  importance 
compared  with  Germany's. 

While  Darwinism  in  England  was  interpreted  to 
mean  the  survival  of  the  fittest  without  special  refer- 
ence to  the  selection  made  in  war,  Darwinism  in  Ger- 
many was  made  the  basis  of  worship  of  war.  Lessing 
and  Kant,  Herder  and  Goethe,  were  peace  lovers  — 
Kant  was  a  pacifist;  but  new  Germany  has  made  the 
holiness  of  war  her  motto,  believes  war  a  link  in  the 
divine  organisation  of  the  universe,  and  considers 
peaceful  endeavour  of  little  worth  compared  with  war. 
Without  war  and  perpetual  preparedness  for  war  na- 
tions and  individuals  grow  weak  and  flabby.  The 
catchword  from  Nietzsche,  the  lust  of  power,  has  been 
generally  accepted  and  especially  his  insolent  phrase: 
^^  A  good  cause  does  not  ennoble  war  but  a  good  war  en- 
nobles any  cause." 

*  *  * 

German  trade  rivalry  first  caused  dissatisfaction  in 
England ;  England's  ^'  open  door "  was  met  by  high 
tariffs  in  Germany.  The  English  were  therefore  ob- 
liged to  compete  under  unfavourable  conditions;  for 
British  standards  of  living  were  higher,  and  German 
wares  were  poorer.  This  was  at  the  time  when  the 
German  technician  Eranz  Reulaux  (1877^  correctly  dis- 
missed German  wares  with  the  disparaging  phrase  which 
long  clung  to  them,   hillig  und  schlecht.     But   time 


THE  FUNDAMENTAL  CAUSES  51 

passed.  The  English  soon  had  to  admit  that  the  Ger- 
mans were  more  painstaking,  knew  more  languages, 
strove  more  anxiously  to  satisfy  their  customers.  The 
German  salesman  is  known  to  outdistance  all  others. 

Germany^s  success,  due  to  her  many  admirable  qual- 
ities, would  have  caused  no  ill  feeling  in  England  had 
the  Germans  not  been  so  parvenus.  But  the  English 
did  not  like  that  the  people  felt  what  the  Kaiser  openly 
assei-ted:  We  are  the  salt  of  the  earth.  England  did 
not  like  that  the  Germans  acted  as  though  they  belonged 
to  a  higher  race,  and  since  1870,  in  fact,  remained  blind 
to  the  virtues  of  other  nations. 


And  now  all  that  has  rankled  during  the  last  forty 
years  is  breaking  out.  All  efforts  toward  international 
peace  and  conciliation  are  forgotten  and  ridiculed. 
Camegie^s  Peace  Palace  at  The  Hague  may  be  given  a 
thorough  cleaning.  Vacations  may  be  accorded  Euro- 
pean diplomats  whose  efforts  are  not  impressive,  even 
when  they  work.  A  perfect  example  of  a  useless  diplo- 
mat is,  perhaps,  the  French  ambassador  in  Vienna,  who 
had  so  little  comprehension  of  conditions  that  he  al- 
lowed the  President  of  France  and  the  Premier  to  leave 
for  a  series  of  diplomatic  visits  immediately  preceding 
Austria's  ultimatum  to  Serbia.  With  Edward  VII  the 
last  great  diplomat  seems  to  have  disappeared. 


52  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR     ' 

All  the  emperors  and  kings  who  are  now  heginning 
war  call  each  on  his  God  to  crush  the  enemy.  So  in  an- 
cient days  Moab  cried  to  Kamosch,  Israel  called  on 
Jehovah.  The  Russian  God  would  seem  a  sort  of' 
national  God,  when  the  Tzar  says,  "  Russia's  God 
is  a  powerful  God,"  and  a  sort  of  Olympian  God 
when  the  President  of  the  Duma  speaks  of  Him  as  the 
''  King  of  Kings  and  the  God  of  Gods."  The  God  of 
Austria-Hungary  guards  the  rights  of  the  Dual  Mon- 
archy; the  Serbian  God  protects  Serbia.  The  German 
God,  also  spoken  of  as  "  Our  Old  Ally  from  Ross- 
bach,"  guards  the  Kaiser  as  His  representative  on  earth, 
aud  the  Kaiser  calls  on  his  people  to  fall  on  their  knees 
and  thank  Him  for  their  victories.  England's  God  pro- 
tects the  King.  Little  Belgium's  God  has  done  His 
best  —  without  particular  succe^^s  —  to  defend  Bel- 
gium's independence.  The  anti-clerical  government  of 
France  alone  seems  to  wish  to  get  along  without  God 
and  is  content  to  rely  on  the  justice  of  its  cause  — 
something,  of  course,  which  all  the  other  nations  also 
rely  on.  On  this  one  point  at  least  all  belligerents  seem 
to  agree.  Most  assuredly,  to  Belgium  and  Germany, 
Germany  and  France,  Russia  and  Germany,  Austria 
and  Serbia,  Gennany  and  England,  etc.,  justice  means 
exactly  the  opposite. 

In  short,  there  are  enough  gods  and  causes  of  justice 
in  the  ring,  but  if  there  had  been  one  single  statesman 
worthy  of  the  name  the  gods  would  not  have  had  to 


THE  FUN^DAME^^TAL  CAUSES  53' 

allow  Beelzebub  to  take  the  place  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
the  cause  of  justice  would  have  been  advanced  without 
mass  murder.  Justice!  It  is  hard  to  see  what  it  has 
to  do  with  the  slaughter  of  the  youth  of  Europe. 

In  other  wars  it  was  <  asy  to  name  the  objects  for 
which  the  nations  were  fighting,  as  when  Italy  fought 
to  become  an  independent  nation,  or  when  Prussia 
wanted  the  port  of  Kiel.  But  at  the  present  moment 
powers  like  Austria,  Germany,  and  France  are  fighting 
for  their  existence,  Belgium  for  her  sovereignty  and 
independence,  Serbia  for  her  future,  Japan  for  her 
future,  Eussia  for  her  prestige,  England  for  her  posi- 
tion as  a  world  power.  One  po\v'er,  never  mentioned, 
will  benefit  by  the  war:  Socialism.  The  various  meas- 
ures taken  by  the  governments  to  prevent  the  exploita- 
tion of  the  people  by  private  capital  will  remain  in  force 
after  the  war  is  over. 

Eussia  moves  slowly  and  she  has  always  shown  her- 
self rather  lukewarm  to  France.  It  took  the  French 
from  August,  1891,  to  th(^,  beginning  of  189^1:  to  per- 
suade Eussia  to  form  a  purely  defensive  alliance.  The 
agreement  of  1910  became  ineffective  when  Eussia  re- 
moved her  troops  from  the  Polish  border.  Until  that 
time  she  had  had  three  very  powerful  corps  d'armee  at 
the  frontier  —  only  three  hundred  kilometres  from 
Berlin.  In  October,  1910,  they  were  brought  back  two 
hundred   kilometres    to   the   Vistula.     To  concentrate 


54  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

four  or  five  army  corps  at  the  border  now  requires  the 
montli  that  has  already  passed. 

Austria  does  not  seem  to  have  progressed  much, 
either,  in  her  attack  on  Serbia.  It  would  seem  as  if 
all  efforts  are  concentrated  on  the  Western  front,  wnere 
the  two  opposing  million  armies  are  beginning  their 
mutual  destruction. 

Germany's  first  entrance  on  the  battlefield  was  not 
marked  with  the  assurance  of  1870.  She  stumbled 
over  the  threshold.  Belgium  undoubtedly  surprised 
her  by  her  undaunted  resistance,  for  which  much 
credit  is  due  ITeni-y  Brialmont,  the  greatest  fortress 
builder  of  modem  times.  The  forts  of  Antwerp  are 
particularly  renowned.  But  Germany's  military  .  or- 
ganisation is  remarkable  and  in  the  long  run  overcomes 
all  obstacles. 

In  a  country  left  outside  the  conflict  it  is  ugly  and 
discouraging  to  find  traces  of  panic,  miserliness,  cupid- 
ity —  causing  speculation  in  food  and  necessaries.  But 
the  unanimous  devotion  and  abnegation  found  in  Serbia, 
Belgium,  France,  and  Germany  is  tragically  inspiring. 

The  future,  however,  remains  dark.  The  moment  is 
so  great  that  one  is  awed  into  silence.  The  grim 
tragedy  is  beginning.  'No  one  can  peer  into  the  future, 
and  if  our  heads  remain  cool,  our  hearts  are  full  of 
terror. 


DIFFEEENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  ON  THE  WAK 
(November,  1914) 

The  English  Point  of  View 

In  the  summer  of  1914  the  British  Lord  Chancellor, 
Viscount  Haldane  de  Clean,  lectured  in  Canada  before 
an  assembled  body  of  American  and  Canadian  jurists 
and  the  lecture  was  published  by  the  International 
Conciliation.  Lord  Haldane,  having  pointed  to  the 
increasing  harmony  between  English-speaking  peoples, 
concluded  that  universal  harmony  and  peaceful  col- 
laboration between  nations  was  a  future  possibility. 
The  Lord  Chancellor  quoted  Penan,  who,  according  to 
George  Meredith,  '^  had.  more  ideas  in  his  head  than 
any  other  European,"  as  saying  that  "  humanity  is 
not  bounded  by  race  nor  language  nor  religion,  nor  by 
rivers  nor  mountain  ranges  '^  and  referred  to  Goethe, 
a  still  greater  man,  as  having  said :  "  We  may  look 
upon  all  civilised  nations  as  forming  one  great  alliance, 
united  by  mutual  endeavour  and  working  towards  the 
same  goal." 

As  a  preface  to  Lord  Haldane's  lecture,  Theodore 
Ruyssen,  professor  at  the  University  of  Bordeaux, 
wrote:     "One  thing,    at  least,   is   certain  —  war  be- 

55 


5^  THE  WORLD  AT  WAit 

comes  rarer.  .  .  .  Durable  alliances  creating  new  polit- 
ical groups  neutralise  the  ambitions  of  individual  states, 
and  thereby  war  threats  are  minimised  or  silenced  in  a 
more  or  less  satisfactory  manner.  The  most  excitable 
Powers'  desire  to  strike  first  is  fettered  by  countless 
threads  spun  from  one  part  of  the  earth  to  another, 
binding  the  nations  together  and  creating  solidarity." 
This  was  said  a  few  months  before  the  outbreak  of 
the  world  war.  Some  of  the  best  men  in  Europe  be- 
lieved humanity  had  progressed  so  far.  Now  Vis- 
count Haldane  is  Lord  Chancellor  of  the  Government 
which  has  declared  war  on  Germany. 

I,  for  my  part,  did  not  share  these  optimistic  views. 
In  a  lecture  I  gave  in  February,  1914,  in  Christiania 
and  Bergen,  on  the  tension  between  England  and  Ger- 
many, I  explained  why  I  believed  the  outlook  was  dark. 
But  I  was  always  glad  to  co-operate  in  peace  work. 

From  the  12th  to  the  19th  of  September  the  twenty- 
first  World's  Peace  Congress  was  to  have  been  held  in 
Vienna.  Count  Berchtold  was  among  the  organisers 
—  he  who  now  directs  the  war  on  Servia,  France,  Eng- 
land, Russia,  Montenegro,  Belgium,  and  Japan.  Em- 
peror Franz  Joseph  had  invited  the  members  of  this 
congress  to  an  elaborate  court  fimction.  The  18th  of 
September  I  was  to  have  spoken  at  the  City  Hall  in 
Vienna.  When  Austria-Hungary  declared  war  on 
Servia,  July  28,  I  sent  my  regrets.  The  conference, 
of  course,  died  a  natural  death. 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  57 

When  the  war  broke  out  and  blazed  to  proportions 
which  no  other  war  on  this  earth  ever  reached,  all 
of  the  warring  states  disclaimed  responsibility  for  it, 
and  began  to  lay  all  the  blame  on  their  enemies.  The 
most  violent  and  passionate  protests  were  voiced  as  to 
the  methods  of  warfare.  Not  only  the  press  and  gov- 
ernments of  belligerent  nations,  but  numerous  artists 
and  men  of  science  —  neutrals  as  well  as  belligerents 
—  have,  as  it  is  known,  taken  sides,  passionately. 


Of  the  numerous  English  pamphlets  inspired  by  the 
war,  Oxford  University  alone  has  so  far  published 
twenty-four.  Gilbert  Murray's  is  naturally  first  men- 
tioned, because  this  distinguished  scholar,  who  has  been 
a  peace  advocate  all  his  life,  the  enthusiastic  trans- 
lator of  Euripides'  "  Trojan  Women "  (the  first  im- 
portant European  cry  against  war)  has  set  the  funda- 
mental question,  "  Is  war  ever  justified  ? ''  He  an- 
swers it  in  reply  to  the  supposed  questions  of  a  Tol- 
stoian,  or  of  one  who  is  convinced  that  the  doctrine 
of  turning  the  other  cheek  is  the  only  salvation,  and 
who  feels  that  the  key  to  the  world's  progress  is  to  re- 
turn good  for  evil. 

Gilbert  Murray,  real  Englishman  that  he  is,  believes 
no  one  could  read  the  official  explanations  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  war  made  by  the  British,  German,  and 


58  THE.  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Russian  governments  without  coming  to  the  conclusion 
that  Germany  (or  a  powerful  party  in  Germany) 
planned  the  war  long  beforehand.  Germany  chose  the 
moment  when  she  knew  her  neighbours  were  unpre- 
pared ; .  prevented  peaceful  understanding  between  Aus- 
tria and  Serbia;  and,  in  order  to  crush  France  more 
rapidly,  violated  Belgian  neutrality.  But  he  foresees 
the  remark  that  ^^  Germany's  aggression  need  not  have 
made  us  aggressors.  We  had  done  our  best  to  maintain 
peace.  When  our  efforts  proved  vain,  we  need  not  have 
increased  the  misery;  we  could  have  remained  neutral 
as  the  United  States." 

Gilbert  Murray  then  asks :  "  Suppose  you  saw  a 
wicked,  a  drimken,  or  insane  man  attack  a  child  on  the 
highway.  Would  you  not  stop  him,  and,  if  necessary, 
knock  him  do^v^i  ?  "  The  Tolstoian  replies :  ''  Why 
should  I  commit  a  sin  ?  Let  the  child  be  killed !  Let 
the  wicked  man  continue  his  evil  deeds.  At  least,  I  do 
not  intend  to  increase  the  unnecessary  vielen  3  in  the 
world." 

!N'o  discussion  is  possible  with  people  who  feel  this 
way.     Gilbert  Murray  looks  upon  matters  as  follows: 

Austria  suddenly  said  to  little  Serbia :  "  You  are  a 
wicked  little  state.  I  have  annexed  and  am  now  ruling 
a  few  million  of  your  compatriots  against  their  will, 
yet  you  persistently  harbour  inimical  feelings  against 
me.  This  I  will  not  stand  for.  Discharge  at  once  all 
functionaries,  politicians,  and  soldiers  who  do  not  love 


differe:n't  points  of  view       59 

Austria.  I  shall,  every  now  and  then,  send  you  a  list 
of  people  whom  I  expect  you  to  discharge  or  imprison 
for  life.  If  you  don't  accept  my  terms  within  forty- 
eight  hours,  I,  being  stronger,  will  force  you  to  do  so." 
Serbia  agreed  to  two-thirds  of  Austria's  demands,  sug- 
gested arbitration  in  regard  to  the  remaining  third  — 
to  which  it  could  not  yield  except  at  the  cost  of  its  na- 
tional sovereignty.  Austria's  reply  was  a  declaration 
of  war. 

In  England  the  situation  was  interpreted  as  follows: 
The  assassination  of  the  Austrian  Archduke  and 
Archduchess  had  taken  place.  The  Archduke  had 
never  been  very  popular  with  the  people  and  because  of 
his  High  Catholic  intolerance  it  was  generally  consid- 
ered regrettable  that  he  was  to  mount  the  throne.  But 
his  death  changed  everything.  Indescribable  horror 
was  expressed  at  the  assassination.  Austria  and  Ger- 
many even  went  so  far  as  to  blame  Serbia  for  the  crime. 
Yet  Portugal  hadn't  been  called  "  a  nation  of  assas- 
sins "  because  the  King  and  most  of  the  members  of 
the  royal  family  were  the  victims  of  a  wide-reaching 
political  conspiracy,  nor  had  Italy  been  called  a  na- 
tion of  assassins  because  an  Italian  anarchist  killed  the 
Empress  of  Austria,  and  another  King  Humberto  of 
Italy. 

By  the  treaties  of  1831-32  and  1839  Belgium  had 
been  declared  an  "  independent  and  neutral "  state. 
This  treaty  Prussia,  as  well  as  Great  Britain,  signed. 


60  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

In  October,  1907,  all  the  Powers  who  participated  in 
The  Hague  Conference  agreed,  among  other  things  that 
the  rights  of  neutral  nations  are  inviolable.  Belliger- 
ent nations  must  not  send  troops  or  supplies  (whether 
ammunition  or  reserves)  through  the  territory  of  a 
neutral  state. 

Yet  Germany  said  to  Belgium :  ''  We  have  no  quar- 
rel with  you.  But  for  various  reasons  we  wish  to 
march  over  your  territory  and  perhaps  fight  a  battle  or 
two.  We  know  that  you  have  agreed  not  to  permit 
such  proceedings,  but  we  can't  help  ourselves.  Con- 
sent, and  we  will  pay  you  in  full  for  any  damage  done. 
Refuse,  and  we'll  punish  you  so  you  will  wish  you  had 
never  lived." 

Belgium  at  that  moment  was  a  free,  independent  na- 
tion. Cli  it  had  granted  Germany's  request  it  would 
no  longer  have  been  either.  It  would  have  taken  orders 
from  a  stranger  who  had  no  right  to  command. 

The  result  is  that  Belgium  for  the  time  being  is 
stricken  from  the  roll  of  independent  nations. 

II 

According  to  the  English,  the  German-speaking  peo- 
ples have  scant  respect  for  small  nations.  As  the  Cen- 
tral Empires  owe  their  existence  to  an  amalgamation  of 
small  states,  their  attitude  is  not  surprising. 

As  opposed  to  this  disdain  of  the  smaller  communi- 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  61 

ties,  English  authors  (as  the  vice-rector  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Sheffield,  H.  A.  S.  Fisher)  remind  us  that 
"  all  valuable  civilisation  springs  from  small  states.'^ 
The  Old  Testament,  Homer,  the  Attic  drama  and  Eliza- 
bethan literature,  the  art  of  the  Italian  Eenaissance,  are 
all  products  of  small  states.  The  world  owes  Athens, 
Jerusalem,  Florence,  Weimar,  much  more  than  mon- 
archs  like  Louis  XIV,  Napoleon,  or  William  II. 
Therefore  England  wants  to  maintain  small  states  on 
the  map  of  the  world. 

Certain  military  temper- ments  in  Germany  consider 
it  regrettable  or  even  contemptible  that  small  states  or- 
ganise their  national  life  on  a  basis  of  peace  and  aspire 
to  keep  out  of  war.  But  even  if  we  were  to  grant  — 
for  the  sake  of  argument  —  that  the  spirit  of  Switzer- 
land, Denmark,  Holland,  and  Belgium  would  be  essen- 
tially improved  if  these  countries  were  annexed  by  some 
great  military  power,  would  not  the  disappearance  of 
these  peace  oases  prove  a  real  loss  to  humanity?  Has 
the  policy  of  conquest  shown  itself  beneficial?  Has 
Poland's  nonexistence  as  a  state  really  profited  the  two 
states  who  divided  it  between  them  ?  —  has  it  not 
rather  been  a  source  of  perpetual  trouble?  Has  the 
acquisition  of  Alsace-Lorraine  not  been  equalV'  oppres- 
sive for  rulers  and  subjects? 

The  English,  who  have  considerable  experience  in 
handling  foreign  elements  within  their  empire,  are 
amazed  at  Prussia's  policy,  for  they  realise  how  unin- 


62  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE. 

telligent  and  fatally  oppressive  it  has  been.  The  Ger- 
man method  is  to  regard  every  characteristic  or  indi- 
vidualistic trait  not  merely  as  troublesome  —  which  it 
may  be  —  but  as  offensive  —  which  it  very  rarely  is. 

The  advantage  of  small  communities  is  to  modify  the 
standard  created  by  larger  communities.  Small  na- 
tions have  the  same  effect  on  Europe  that  individuality 
has  on  society  —  they  disprove,  counteract,  oppose  the 
deadening  belief  that  everything  depends  on  the  brute 
strength  of  organised  masses. 

If  the  word  civilisation  means  anything,  if  it  implies 
good  will,  faithfulness  to  duty,  self-sacrifice,  intel- 
lectual interest,  and  clear  judgment,  there  is  no  reason 
for  believing  that  civilisation  is  monopolised  by  the 
larger  states.  Indeed,  certain  forms  of  brutal  patrio- 
tism are  inimical  to  civilised  thought.  Such  patriotism 
may  be  combined  with  heroism,  which  existed  even  in 
barbarous  times,  but  it  is  an  expression  of  fanaticism, 
which  has  always  been  the  worst  enemy  of  progress 
whether,  as  religious  fanaticism,  it  burnt  heretics  on 
the  stake  or  as  military  fanaticism,  it  annihilates  what- 
ever interferes  with  its  plans. 

Ill 

Therefore,  if  Great  Britain  and  the  English  are 
asked  what  they  are  fighting  for  the  answer  is : 

"  First  of  all  for  our  national  honour.     We  promised 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  63 

solemnly  to  guarantee  Belgium's  neutrality  wlien  Bel- 
gium became  an  independent  nation  and  Prussia,  who 
now  violates  this  neutrality,  agreed  to  uphold  it  just  as 
we.  Of  what  use  are  treaties  if  they  can  be  broken 
without  penalty,  if  one  party  finds  it  convenient  to  do 
so  ?  If  international  morality  doesn't  exist,  what  is  to 
become  of  individual  morality  and  business  morality? 
Breach  of  faith  jeopardises  all  law  and  all  civilisation. 
Germany  says  France  would  have  violated  Belgium's 
neutrality  if  Germany  had  not  done  so.  But  France 
said,  '  Xo,'  when,  just  before  the  war.  Sir  Edward 
Grey  asked  whether  she  had  such  intentions.  Germany 
refused  to  answer,  and  the  German  Chancellor  soon 
afterwards  called  the  treaty  ^  a  scrap  of  paper.' 

"  Secondly,  we  are  fighting  for  small  nations,  and 
for  the  rights  of  all  small  nations.  The  Pan-German- 
ists  want  to  absorb  all  nations  in  any  way  related  to 
Germany  by  race  or  language.  Germany  ignores  these 
small  nations'  struggles  for  independence  in  the 
past,  as  well  as  their  noble  fight  for  freedom  in  our 
days. 

"  In  the  third  place  we  are  fighting  for  democracy  as 
opposed  to  autocracy.  Most  assuredly  Russia  is  an 
absolute  monarchy,  but  she  would  have  had  a  constitu- 
tion more  than  fifty  years  ago  if  Alexander  had  not 
been  assassinated.  She  has  a  Duma,  at  any  rate,  and 
is  progressing  toward  constitutional  government. 
France  is  a  republic.     The  Belgian  and  Japanese  gov- 


64  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

ernments  resemble  the  English.  'During  the  last  forty 
years  Germany,  on  the  contrary,  has  not  progressed  at 
all  along  democratic  lines;  the  Reichstag  has  no  in- 
fluence; the  ministers  are  not  responsible;  the  masses 
in  Prussia  have  no  voting  power  compared  with  the 
aristocracy.  The  Emperor  is  war  lord.  The  army 
and  navy  are  under  his  command  alone. 

"  Furthermore,  we  are  fighting  for  tli  e  peace  of  Eu- 
rope; for  arbitration  to  prevent  war,  and  for  the  or- 
ganisation of  states  on  a  basis  of  peace  as  opposed  to 
militarism.  The  German  triumphs  of  1864,  1866, 
1870  were  harvested  by  militarism.  War  was  looked 
upon  as  all  powerful  in  Gennany.  Treitscke  wrote: 
^  We  disposed  of  Austria ;  we  disposed  of  France ;  the 
last  and  worst  bout  is  left :  England.'  Germany's 
mighty  army  and  powerful  uoat  were  supposed  to  dis- 
pose of  that. 

'^  We  are  first  and  last  fighting  for  our  natipnal  ex- 
istence, the  ultynate  object  of  every  nation.  The  strug- 
gle will  be  long  and  hard  as  Germany  is  also  fighting 
for  her  national  existence.  Germany  has  more  in- 
habitants than  we,  and  her  people  are  cemented  by  a 
devotion  to  state  and  fatherland  scarcely  ever  equalled, 
let  alone  surpassed,  by  any  other  people.  The  Germans 
meant  to  tackle  England  last  of  all.  First  they  had 
hoped  to  crush  France;  then  to  weaken  Russia;  after 
that  they  would  have  turned  on  us.  They  hate  us  now 
because  we  blocked  this  plan. 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  65 

"  What  if  the  Germans  were  to  succeed  ?  What 
would  happen  ? 

"  Belgium  would  remain  German  and,  as  Napoleon 
said,  the  power  which  holds  Antwerp  points  a  pistol  at 
England's  heart.  Even  if  Belgium  were  granted  an 
apparent  inJependeiice,  it  would  have  to  submit  to 
German  tariff  regulations.  Belgian  Congo  would,  of 
course,  he  taken,  and  this  would  imperil  our  African 
colonies. 

"  Even  if  Holland  were  to  remain  outwardly  inde- 
pendent it  would  be  German  in  reality.  Rotterdam 
would  virtually  be  German;  the  mouth  of  the  Scheldt 
would  be  controlled  by  Germany.  France's  fate  would 
be  that  predicted  by  Bismarck  when  he  spoke  of  tapping 
France  until  her  blood  ran  white.  The  war  indemni- 
ties imposed  on  her  in  this  war  would  make  those  of 
1871  seem  like  a  flea  bite.  All  French  colonies  would 
be  annexed  by  Germany,  and  Spain  would  have  to  re- 
tire from  Morocco.  England  would  have  a  German 
Tangiers  opposite  Gibraltar,  and  a  German  Agadir  on 
the  Atlantic  coast  would  threaten  her  communications 
with  Nigeria  and  South  Africa.  The  entire  North 
Sea  from  the  Elbe  to  Dover  would  come  under  German 
control.  By  means  of  the  French  billions,  Germany 
could  triple  her  fleet. 

"  Great  Britain's  supremacy  depends  absolutely  on 
her  invincibility  at  sea  —  mthout  it  she  would  have 
no  hold  on  India  and  the  colonies  scattered  all  over 


GQ  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

the  world.  But  if  Germany  dominated  the  North  Sea, 
England  could  not  remain  the  ruling  sea  power.  While 
the  United  States  would  not  allow  Germany  to  invade 
Canada,  Canada  would  have  to  abandon  England  and 
ally  herself  with  the  United  States  in  self-defence. 
Important  territories  in  Australia  would  be  conquered 
by  Germany,  and  South  Africa  would  become  German 
land.  British  interests  in  Africa  as  well  as  in  Hong 
Kong,  the  Malayan  states,  Gibraltar  and  Malta  — 
everything  worth  taking  would  be  wrenched  away. 
And  even  if  England  were  allowed  to  keep  India  and 
Egypt,  her  prestige  would  be  so  diminished  that  it 
would  merely  be  a  question  of  time  before  she  lost  these 
possessions  too.  Ireland  would  probably  become  a  sepa- 
rate state;  Cork,  Dublin,  and  Belfast  would  have  Ger- 
man garrisons. 

"  Such  provisions  are  not  the  result  of  a  panicstricken 
imagination.  In  Hamburger  Fremd enhlatt  for  Septem- 
ber 4  the  German  Vice- Admiral  Kirchoff  wrote: 
'  Germany's  army  and  navy  are  now  ready  to  attack 
England  in  the  North  Sea  and  in  the  Channel.  We 
will  fight  her  by  every  means  in  our  power  —  at  sea,'  in 
the  air,  and  on  land  —  by  financial,  political,  and  eco- 
nomic forces.  Whether  the  struggle  be  long  or  short, 
Germany  will  not  rest  until  her  goal  has  been  reached.'  " 

Therefore  the  English  feel  that  not  only  are  they 
carrying  on  a  war  for  the  rights  of  small  states  (which 
in  the  days  of  the  Boer  War  scarcely  troubled  their  con- 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  67 

science)  but  that  they  are  carrying  on  a  war  of  life  and 
death  for  England's  existence  as  a  world  power. 

The  Feecn^ch  Point  of  View 

The  year  18T1  is  a  turning-point  in  the  history  of 
France  of  to-day. 

The  French  feel :  "  We  were  defeated  and  crippled 
in  1870-71.  Although  bled  to  the  last  drop,  we  reacted, 
and  for  more  than  forty  years  we  have  tried  to  make  the 
best  of  the  situation.  But  even  our  crippled  and  check- 
ered national  life  galled  the  victor  who  had  dreamt  of 
crushing  us  beyond  hope.  The  civilised  world  can  bear 
witness  to  the  fact  that  for  more  than  forty  years  we 
have  formed  the  peaceful  element  in  Europe.  With 
eiidless  patience  we  have  tried  to  safeguard  our  inde- 
pendence and  defend  our  liberty.  Again  and  again, 
without  provocation^  our  peace  has  been  threatened  by 
the  flash  of  German  swords.  But  we  never  lost  our 
self-control.  >' 

"  We  lived  in  peace.  But  we  were  obliged  to  think 
of  our  defence  and  as  we  were  divided  politically  we 
provided  badly  for  this  defence.  We  never  thought  of 
attacking.  And  when  our  country  was  humiliated  or 
scorned,  officially  as  in  Alsace-Lorraine  or  unofficially 
as  in  the  German  press,  we  screened  ourselves  behind 
a  mask  of  indifference  and  uttered  no  word,  made  not 
a  movement,  apparently  untouched  by  the  cries  of 
French  voices  on  the  other  side  of  the  frontier ! 


68  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

''  But  although  varying  ideals,  springing  from  con- 
flicting traditions  —  the  Catholic  and  the  Eevolution- 
ary,  the  Koyalist  and  the  Republican,  the  liberal  and 
the  socialistic  —  divided  our  national  life,  now  that 
the  hour  of  danger  has  struck,  now  that  we  cannot  lose 
the  slightest  bit  of  land  without  losing  France  herself, 
now  we  have  become  one  people,  one  soul,  one  will  in 
its  highest  potentiality.  I^ow  you  cannot  find  two 
Frenchmen  who  hate  each  other.  Our  only  desire  is  to 
prove  worthy  of  our  forefathers.  We,  who  never  have 
flinched,  who  have  met  derisions  and  humiliations  with 
unbowed  head  and  without  loss  of  color,  are  like  old  steel 
swords  tempered  so  finely  that  they  cannot  break  but 
respond  at  once  to  the  armourer's  haramer.  France 
has  laid  the  soul  of  her  people  on  the  anvil !  " 

The  French  feel  it  as  a  touch  of  Fate's  irony  that  a 
Frenchman,  Count  Gobineau,  should  have  been  the  first 
to  evolve  the  theory  of  the  moral  superiority  of  the  Ger- 
man people.  His  amusing  doctrine  as  to  the  superiority 
of  the  blond,  elongated  type  of  skull  was  hailed  with 
joy  by  German  men  of  science.  In  opposition  to  this 
the  French  now  contend  that  the  narrow  elongated 
skulls  are  also  found  among  wild  races  like  the  Hotten- 
tots, the  Ashanti  Xegroes,  the  Papuans.  In  opposition 
to  the  theory  of  the  superiority  of  the  German  people 
they  point  to  the  fact  that  the  Prussians,  who  rule  Ger- 
many, are  not  of  German  origin.  The  German  knights 
who  founded  Prussia  were  adventurers  from  all  races. 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  69 

and  the  land  they  settled  was  almost  completely  Slav. 
Stuart  Mill  has,  somewhere,  very  justly  remarked  that 
of  all  the  easy  and  most  childish  methods  of  accounting 
without  effort  for  the  spiritual,  psychological,  and  so- 
cial forces  which  influence  man,  the  most  elemental  is 
to  ascribe  variations  in  manners  and  character  to  racial 
differences. 

Among  German  theorists,  Woltman  teaches  that  the 
German  has  reached  the  highest  civilisation,  "  thanks  to 
the  perfect  organisation  of  the  German  mind  " ;  all  the 
great  men  in  history  were  German  in  reality,  he  claims. 
Giotto's  real  name  was  Jotte,  Tasso  was  Dasse,  Leonardo 
was  a  German  by  the  name  of  Leonhard,  Diderot  was 
Tieroth;  Gounod,  Gundiwald.  The  whole  Italian  Ee- 
naissance  was  a  German  product.  (I  know  the  book 
only  by  Jean  Finot's  resume  of  it,  but  a  similar  essay 
has  also  been  published  in  Danish.) 

Houston  Chamberlain,  the  Germanised  Englishman, 
Emperor  William's  favourite  author,  teaches  that  every- 
thing great  in  the  Christian  Era  and  all  inventions  of 
mankind  must  be  credited  to  the  Gei-man  race.  This 
humorist  does  not  know  that  men  of  science  doubt  the 
Jew's  Semitic  descent;  he  claims  that  Jesus  was  not  a 
Jew  but  an  Aryan  and  that  the  Germans  are  the  true 
Aryans. 

The  French  felt  unpleasantly  affected  when  German 
professors  and  generals  gave  vent  to  the  same  bellicose 


70  THE  WORLD  AT  WAH 

patriotism.  General  Bemliardi  considers  the  Germans 
the  super  race,  just  as  l^ietzsche  spoke  of  the  superman. 
General  von  der  Goltz,  as  well  as  Colonel  Köttschau, 
make  it  a  point  to  show  that  in  war  the  greatest  brutality 
is  in  reality  most  humane  as  it  creates  the  greatest  de- 
sire for  the  cessation  of  war.  In  war,  violence  and 
brutality  are  bound  by  no  conventions  of  international 
law.  What  was  previously  called  civilisation,  although 
it  never  completely  mastered  humanity,  is  theoretically 
crushed  by  these  authors  in  a  way  which,  because  it  is 
so  methodic,  one  scarcely  can  call  barbarous.  Eminent 
men  show  an  alarming  Pan-Germanism.  Marshall 
Baron  Bronsart  von  Schellendorf,  former  Minister  of 
War,  writes :  "  We  claim  that  our  country  has  a  right 
not  only  to  the  North  Sea  but  to  the  Mediterranean  and 
the  Atlantic.  Gradually  we  intend  to  annex  Denmark, 
Holland,  Belgium,  Franche  Comte,  North  Switzerland, 
Triest,  Venice,  and  finally  that  strip  of  Northern  France 
that  lies  between  the  Somme  and  the  Loire."  And 
these  far-reaching  plans  are  justified  by  the  argument, 
^'  We  must  not  forget  the  civilising  mission  which  des- 
tiny has  entrusted  to  us." 

France  was  surprised  that  the  certainty  of  divine 
superiority  should  go  hand  in  hand  with  enthusiasm 
for  war  as  war.  In  Germany  during  the  last  years 
war  has  again  and  again  been  declared  the  highest  and 
holiest  expression  of  human  activity,  the  greatest  bene- 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  71 

factor  of  humanity,  the  only  test  of  universal  ability, 
which  constructs,  ««trengthens,  and  maintains  state  and 
society. 

From  the  German  armies  on  French  territory  the 
song  rises,  '^^Deutschland,  Deutschland,  über  alles!** 
And  the  French  ask,  "  Also  above  right,  justice,  liberty, 
humanity  ? '' 

The  French  people  did  not  want  war.  Nevertheless 
a  certain  militarism  (as  shown  by  the  Dreyfus  affair) 
had  found  expression  in  France.  The  unpleasant 
events  in  Saveme  in  1914  not  only  stirred  French  mili- 
tarists to  anger  but  brought  them  together.  Both  the 
Action  Frangaise  and  the  Echo  de  Paris  fuUy  under- 
stood that  William  II  wished  to  demonstrate  that  his 
officers  should  not  suffer  any  slight,  but  should  feel  them- 
selves covered  even  if  in  the  wrong :  "  Would  that 
officers  in  other  countries  could  have  the  same  feeling !  ^' 

In  this  war  the  French,  with  regard  to  Germany, 
consider  themselves  the  champions  of  modern  democracy 
as  established  in  France  by  the  Revolution.  To  them, 
Prussia's  constitution  seems  a  relic  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  members  of  the  Prussian  Diet  are  elected,  as  is 
known,  by  a  three  class  vote,  which  upon  one  occasion, 
in  Berlin,  enabled  two  men,  the  Botzow  Brothers,  to 
elect  twice  as  many  candidates  as  the  571  men  who 
formed  the  third  class.  Prussia  has  a  reactionary  rep- 
resentation and  her  whole  influence  on  Europe  is  reac- 
tionary.    Prussia  pretends  to  favour  Poland  now,  but 


72  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Germany  helped  Russia  to  crush  Poland  at  the  time  of 
the  Polish  uprising  in  1863.  Prussia,  as  opposed  to 
religionless  France,  champions  the  Christian  state;  but 
she  sided  with  her  ally,  Turkey,  against  the  Christian 
Armenians  when  they  were  massacred  in  the  end  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  iSTow  the  Germans  stamp  the  Rus- 
sians as  barbarians,  knout  swingers,  and  enemies  of 
liberty;  but  until  the  declaration  of  war  the  Prussian 
police  watched  and  spied  on  every  poor,  radical  Russian 
student  in  his  garret  in  Berlin  or  Munich;  again  and 
again  he  was  asked  to  show  his  papers  —  and  woe  to 
him  if  these  were  not  in  order!  With  glee  he  was 
handed  over  to  the  Russian  police.  If  there  was  any 
place  on  earth  where  no  hater  of  Tzarism  dared  go,  it 
was  Berlin.  Russian  revolutiomiries  everywhere  re- 
garded the  Prussian  police  as  a  branch  of  the  Russian. 

The  French  point  with  pride  to  the  inscription  on 
,their  official  buildings:  Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity 
—  an  inscription  bearing,  it  is  true,  little  semblance 
^to  fact  —  and  claim  that  the  inscription  found  on  most 
German  monuments  is :  Es  ist  verboten.  .  .  . 

In  France,  attention  is  also  drawn  to  the  fact  that 
after  the  fall  of  Count  Bülow  (as  a  punishment  because 
he  announced  in  the  Reichstag  that  the  Kaiser  had 
promised  not  to  interfere  in  German  politics)  the  new 
"  bloc  "  has  levied  taxes  to  the  amount  of  six  hundred 
million  francs  a  year  on  articles  of  necessity.  Great 
property  owners  do  not  contribute  a  penny  of  this. 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  73 

All  promises  of  electoral  reforms  made  by  Prince  Biilow 
have  fallen  into  oblivion  —  wbile  the  junker  and 
agrarian  policies  are  enforced  without  regard  for  the 
suffering  of  the  people.  The  Kaiser  must  not  be  criti- 
cised; hi^  person  is  considered  arch-holy,  and  suits 
of  Use  majeste  abound  in  Germany.  There  is  nothing 
comparable  to  this  in  France.  In  Germany  a  socialist 
writer  was  condemned  to  imprisonment  for  a  year  and 
a  half  for  having  criticised  the  Emperor's  great-grand- 
mother, Empress  Louise  of  Prussia.  Cases  of  Use 
majeste,  and  imprisonment  inflicted  therefor,  have 
steadily  increased.  From  1888  to  1898,  in  the  first 
ten  years  of  the  Emperor's  reign,  the  terms  of  those  im- 
prisoned for  Use  majeste  totalled  1120  years.  In  La 
Revue  it  is  claimed  that  up  to  1912,  12,600  years'  im- 
prisonment had  been  imposed,  according  to  German 
statistics.  This  can  hardly  be  true.  One  thing  is  sure, 
however,  that  in  sentences  of  this  kind  the  Kaiser  never 
makes  use  of  his  right  of  pardon. 

In  contrast  to  France  an  admirable  discipline 
reigns  in  Germany,  but  this  discipline  leaves  little  room 
for  independent  thought.  Even  German  science  is 
official ;  as  Frederick  the  Great  is  supposed  to  have  said : 
"  I  begin  by  taking.  Then  I  always  find  men  of  science 
to  prove  the  justice  of  my  claim." 

The  strength  of  the  caste  system  which  the  Eevolution^ 
destroyed  in  France  surprises  the  Frenchman  who  visits 
Germany.     Officers  belong  to  a  higher  caste ;  f unation- 


74  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

aries  in  their  different  hierarchies  form  another.  While 
in  France  the  mode  of  address  is  Monsieur  and  Madame, 
titles  flourish  to  such  an  extent  in  Germany  that  no 
member  of  the  upper  classes  is  ever  mentioned  without" ^ 
his  title.  The  French  cannot  tolerate  this  trait  which 
appears  in  many  forms ;  as  sons  of  the  Revolution  they 
look  upon  it  as  servility. 

So  far  as  England  and  Germany  are  concerned,  there 
is  no  difficulty  in  gathering  material  as  to  the  attitude 
regarding  the  war.  The  foreigner  is  smothered  with 
brochures  and  documents.  But  France  is  different. 
While  from  the  beginning,  Belgium,  and  thereupon  Ger- 
many and  England,  protested  loudly  against  the  in- 
jury done  them,  France  has  scarcely  appealed  to  Eu- 
rope. She  seems  on  the  whole  to  consider  the  justice 
of  her  case  so  obvious  that  it  does  not  need  corrobora- 
tion. And  then  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  publi- 
cation of  magazines,  etc.,  stopped  almost  entirely  in 
I'rance;  for  months  the  mails  have  been  absolutely  un- 
reliable. At  long  intervals  we  get  the  daily  news- 
papers, frequently  censored,  as  in  Russia. 

Newspapers,  printed  by  the  hundred  thousand  for 
general  circulation,  cannot  be  used  as  a  basis  for  him 
who  seeks  real  motives  or  feelings.  They  contain,  as 
the  corresponding  German  publications,  insults  only. 
"  Barbarians,  bandits,  murderers "  correspond  in 
French  to  the  German  epithets,  especially  in  regard  to 
England :     "  cowards,     criminals,     hypocrites,     liars, 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  75 

calumniators."  The  world  scarcely  has  echo  for  such 
salutations.  But  they  create  and  stimulate  a  national 
hatred  so  great  that  one  can  scarcely  see  how  co-oper- 
ation among  the  nations  will  he  possible  within  the  next 
dozen  years.  In  all  belligerent  countries  the  press  has 
much  to  be  proud  of.     As  it  says  in  Les  E ff routes : 

Vernouillet 

'^ Ah,  Gihoyer,  quelle  admirable  chose  que  la  presse!'* 

GiBOYEE 

"iVe  m'en  parle  pas,  ga  fait  fremir!** 

Following  the  example  of  the  German  scientists,  the 
learned  men  of  France  have  not  hesitated  to  use  big 
words.  At  the  Institute,  Bergson,  the  president  of  the 
Academy,  saluted  the  Belgian  members  with  a  speech 
which  began: 

"  The  struggle  that  is  being  waged  against  Germany 
is  that  of  civilisation  itself  against  barbarism.  The 
whole  world  feels  this,  but  our  Academy  has  special  au- 
thority to  express  it.  As  it  has  devoted  itself  to  the 
study  of  spiritual,  moral,  and  social  problems,  it  is  its 
duty  to  characterise  Germany's  brutality  and  cynicism 
as  a  return  to  barbarism." 

Among  the  poets,  Romain  Rolland  has  frequently 
wielded  the  pen.  Now  and  then  he  has  asked  his 
friends  in  neutral  countries  to  take  sides  with  him  and 
be  has  been  liberal  and  sympathetic  enough  not  to  mis- 


76  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

understand  their  refusal.  Alone  he  has  asked  for  signa- 
tures to  the  following  appeal  to  be  sent  to  The  Hague 
Peace  Palace; 

"  In  spite  of  the  horror  which  filled  the  civilised 
world  at  the  destruction  of  Malines  and  Louvain,  the 
Germans  have  bombarded  the  Cathedral  of  Reims. 
This  appalling  crime  is  a  blow  not  merely  to  one  nation 
but  to  humanity  itself.  Such  a  monument  is  a  sanctu- 
ary and  a  glory  to  humanity.  The  best  elements  with 
a  cry  of  anger  must  reply  to  the  insult  which  has  been 
perpetrated  by  the  hordes  unfit  to  be  reckoned  among 
civilised  peoples.  Without  blaming  the  whole  German 
people  for  the  crimes  of  its  leaders,  we  regret,  for  its 
sake,  that  from  its  midst  not  one  voice  has  been 
lifted  in  protest.  Until  the  authors  of  these  un- 
pardonable crimes  have  been  punished,  we  pass  their 
names  on  to  the  curses  of  humanity." 

But  Romain  Rolland  was  not  satisfied  by  this  violent 
attack  which  only  demands  the  use  of  superlatives.  He 
has,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  written  such  impartial 
and  pacifying  words  as  have  not  been  heard  in  Ger- 
many, in  spite  of  the  Germans'  assertion  that  they  are 
fighting  France  without  hatred.  On  the  22d  and  23d 
of  September  he  wrote  in  the  Journal  de  Geneve  a 
poetic  article  entitled,  "  Above  the  Battle  "  (Au  dessus 
de  la  melee),  where  he  begins  by  addressing  the  youth 
of  all  countries: 

"  Heroic  youth  of  the  world !     With  what  reckless 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  77 

joy  you  pour  out  your  life  blood!  You  young  men, 
whom  a  common  ideal  tragically  pits  against  one  an- 
other! You  enemy  brothers!  Slavs,  rushing  to  save 
your  race,  Englishmen  fighting  for  right  and  honour, 
fearless  Belgian  youths,  who  have  dared' jto  challenge 
the  German  colossus,  Germans,  who  fight  to  /preserve 
Kant's  thought  and  Kant's  city  against  CossackSj  and.  '^ 
especially  you,  my  young  countrymen  on  the  way  to  the  ' 
firing  line  who  have  sent  me  a  beautiful  farewell  —  how 
I  love  you  all !  "  . 

The  voice  that  sounds  most  powerfully  from  France 
is  the  voice  of  humanity.  While  the  rulers  are  throw- 
ing the  blame  for  the  war  on  one  another,  and  while  the 
people  resign  themselves  to  war,  as  brought  on  by  a 
power  stronger  than  mankind,  by  Fate,  this  voice  re- 
minds us  that  the  human  herd  has  always  made  of  its 
feebleness  a  God,  called  it  fate,  and  worshipped  it.  As 
if  this  Fate  were  anything  but  men's  lach  of  will  power, 
their  inability  to  prevent  misery!  And  now  the  herd 
instead  of  quieting  the  flames  of  war  is  casting  fuel  on 
it ;  each  one  comes  rushing  with  his  arms  full. 

France  alone  has  expressed  regret  that  the  youth  of 
all  countries  is  marshalled  into  regiments,  and  that 
the  elite  of  all  belligerent  countries  has  stepped  into 
rank  and  file,  convinced  that  their  own  country's  cause 
is  the  only  one  of  liberty  and  human  progress.  The 
clergy  in  all  countries  have  appeared  as  the  most  pas- 
sionate nationalists.     No  one  is  so  intent  on  war  as  the 


78  THE  WOKLD  AT  WAE 

representatives  of  the  King  of  Peace.  Even  the 
Socialists  have  buried  their  peace  talk  among  old  scrap 
irons.  They  have,  particularly  in  Germany,  hastened 
to  forge  ne^v  irons  and  arms,  and  to  repudiate  the  past 
to  defend  one  autocracy  against  another.  This  is  true 
of  all  three  empires.  The  three  preying  eagles,  with 
one  or  two  heads,  are  like  vultures  hovering  over  corpses 
and  carcasses. 

Immediately  following  the  great  defeat  of  1870 
France  had  no  thought  but  to  win  back  the  lost  provinces. 
Then  came  a  time  when  this  ideal  seemed  pushed  aside. 
Among  the  educated  youth  there  existed  the  friend- 
liest feeling  for  Germany,  sometimes  even  enthusiasm. 
Only  in  the  twentieth  centurv;,  especially  since  Agadir, 
did  sentiment  change  and  the  thought  of  reconquering 
the  lost  possessions  rise  again. 

The  French  campaign  in  Alsace,  at  the  l^eginning  of 
the  war,  was  not  a  military  move  but  a  political  one, 
designed  to  create  within  and  without  the  borders  a 
conception  of  the  object  of  the  war.  For  the  present 
France  seems  to  feel  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  wrench 
these  provinces  away  from  the  Germans  by  military 
power,  but  that  the  object  may  be  obtained  by  a  collapse 
of  Austria-Hungary. 

France  looks  not  only  to  Europe  but  to  the  entire 
world.  France  expects  the  United  States,  as  a  Chris- 
tian country,  to  be  shocked  at  the  Germans  calling  on 
300,000  Mohammedans  to  carry  on  "  a  holy  war  on 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  Y9 

Christian  states."  m  France  the  people  know  that  in 
case  of  war,  the  United  States  considers  England  as  a 
mother  country.  France  looks  to  Russia's  inexhaustible 
army,  to  England's  infinite  resources,  and  feels  lifted 
and  strengthened  by  the  knowledge  that  the  catastrophe 
of  1870  was  not  repeated.  The  twentieth  century 
found  France  surpassing  all  expectations. 

The  German  Point  of  View 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  war  something  very  extraordi- 
nary happened.  High  and  mighty  Germany,  whose 
motto  for  the  last  fifty  years  had  been,  Oderint  dum 
meivmit!  (Let  them  hate  provided  they  fear)  suddenly 
began  to  crave  love,  and  i;o  ransack  neutral  countries 
for  sympathy.  Wherever  Germany  thought  herself  un- 
justly denigrated,  if  only  by  the  usual  fallacious  press 
bureaus,  she  had  the  words  "  lies  and  calumnies  "  on  her 
lips;  while  her  papers  reprinted  ad  infinitum  every 
favourable  or  enthusiastic  expression  about  Germany. 
Germany's  defenders  have  been  praised  to  the  skies, 
and  have  been  rewarded  in  a  material  way  by  large 
royalties  from  their  books  in  Germany.  Authors  like 
Wells  and  Maeterlinck,  composers  like  Saint  Saens  and 
Leoncavallo,  who  in  one  way  or  another  have  attacked 
Germany,  have  in  return  been  most  shockingly  scored; 
they  have  been  ridiculed  and  caricatured  beyond  mean 
and  measure. 

Few  neutral   authors  of  even  mediocre  reputation 


80  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

escaped  the  request  to  make  some  statement  favourable 
to  Germany.  As  a  rhle  the  advantages  of  such  a  state- 
ment were  flashed  before  the  eyes  of  the  potential  par- 
tisan —  with  threats  implied  in  case  of  refusal.  A  let- 
ter of  this  nature  I  recently  received  says :  "  Wer  in 
diesen  Tagen  Deutschland  Freundschaft  hezeigt,  dem 
wird  es  nie  vergessen  iveräen.  Freilich  auch  nicht  kor- 
rekte Gleichgiltigkeit."  It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that 
such  addresses  fail  to  produce  the  dpsired  impression  — 
at  least  on  an  author  of  standing. 

Like  the  English  and  French,  the  German  papers 
are  filled  to  the  overflow  with  self-praise ;  therefore  for- 
eign approbation,  for  a  change,  is  most  eagerly  sought. 
But  to  be  acceptable,  praise  must  be  unconditional.  I 
know  of  an  author  who  was  asked,  first  by  a  German, 
then  by  an  Austrian  paper,  to  say  something  about  the 
war.  His  words  were  never  printed  because  they  were 
not  sufficiently  pro-German.  Then  he  received  a  tele- 
gram from  a  large  English  paper;  he  sent  an  article; 
this  was  not  accepted  for  it  was  not  sufliciently  pro-Eng- 
lish. In  other  words,  no  side  cares  to  hear  the  truth  — 
or  what  the  writer  believes  to  be  the  truth;  both  sides 
seek  nothing  but  encouragement,  praise,  flattery. 


Before  each  war,  Bismarck  had  known  how  to  isolate 
the  opponent  he  wished  to  crush,  how  to  isolate  him  so 


DIFFEKENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  81 

completely  that  he  stood  without  a  single  friend  in  the 
hour  of  need.  ^N^either  Denmark  nor  Austria  nor 
France  could  find  an  ally  when  attacked  by  Germany. 
Bismarck's  diplomatic  art  and  astuteness  did  the  pre- 
liminary work  —  superior  munitions  and  irresistible 
military  leadership  completed  the  German  task  within 
a  few  months. 

*It  is  easy  to  see  that  Bismarck  is  no  more,  and  has  no 
successor.  While  Germany  from  a  military  standpoint 
was  prepared  for  war  as  no  other  country  in  the  world, 
German  diplomats  had  neglected  their  terrain  and  at 
the  decisive  moment  enemy  after  enemy  rose  against 
Germany.  Germany's  army  was  so  perfect  that  it  could 
challenge  a  much  larger  army.  German  diplomacy  had 
done  its  preparatory  work  so  badly  that  four  great 
Powers  and  several  small  ones  became  allies  against 
Germany-Austria.  More  than  half  of  the  world  took 
arms  against  the  two  Central  Empires.  On  the  two 
fronts  alone  France-Eussia  represents  190  millions 
against  Germany-Austria's  120  millions. 

The  German  Government  immediately  began  to  issue 
White  Books  to  prove  the  Kaiser's  love  of  peace  and  his 
efforts  to  maintain  it  —  he  had  turned  both  to  the  Tzar 
and  to  King  George  to  prevent  the  European  War. 
Attention  was  not  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  origin  of 
the  war  lay  in  Austria's  ultimatum  to  Serbia  (not  in 
Russia  nor  England),  nor  to  Sir  Edward  Grey's  re- 
peated attempts  to  do  everything  in  human  power  to 


82  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

have  this  ultimatum  retracted  or  postponed,  nor  to  Em- 
peror William's  etubbom  refusal  to  lift  even  a  finger 
to  compel  Austria  to  bring  the  Austro-Serbian  diffi- 
culties before  a  European  tribunal. 

Of  course  Kaiser  William  wanted  peace;  he  fondly 
hoped  that  Russia  would  quietly  submit  to  Serbia's 
chastisement  by  Austria.  In  his  opinion  Russia  would 
be  sufficiently  appeased  if  Serbian  territorial  integrity 
were  respected  even  if  the  nation's  sovereignty  were 
done  away  with.  He  hoped  further  that  even  if  Rus- 
sia did  step  into  the  ring  and  dragged  France  along, 
England  would  remain  neutral  if  the  integrity  of 
France  were  vouched  for.  Kaiser  William  sincerely 
wanted  peace,  or  (if  he  could  not  accomplish  his  pur- 
pose without  it)  a  short  war  with  France,  followed  by  a 
rapid  expedition  into  Russia  —  a  quick  triumph,  in 
short.  His  object  was  peace  for  Germany  and  free 
reins  for  Austria  in  the  Balkans. 

Meanwhile  important  Germans  began  to  inform  the 
world  that  the  Kaiser  had  not  wanted  war.  He  had  al- 
ways been  a  pacifist.  The  war  was  forced  upon  him. 
Half  the  world  was  in  arms  and  menacing  peace-loving 
Germany.  In  their  hearts  the  great  mass  of  Germans 
knew  they  had  not  wanted  war  but  had  been  absorbed 
in  peaceful  endeavour.  The  nation  was  taking  giant 
strides  in  commerce,  shipping,  in  all  branches  of  indus- 
try and  science.  It  had  built  the  greatest  ships,  just 
as  it  had  the  largest  universities.     It  had  gradually  out- 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  83 

distanced  its  rivals  in  mechanical  construction  as  well 
as  in  business  initiative.  It  rejoiced  in  the  progress 
made  in  the  last  generation,  and  its  only  ambition  vras 
new  fields  of  expansion.  And  now  it  was  suddenly 
hemmed  in  on  every  side !  It  was  painfully  surprised 
to  find  itself  the  object  of  universal  hatred  and  to  meet 
with  an  opposition  which  threatened  to  thwart  its  am- 
bitions! Why  was  Germany  hated?  Germany,  the 
country  which  more  than  any  other  had  made  it  a  point 
to  understand  and  in  understanding  to  absorb  and  profit 
by  foreign  values  and  ideals! 

And  the  wise  men  of  science  were  called  to  explain 
to  the  people.  There  had  been  a  time  when  Germany 
was  universally  liked,  from  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  until  about  1848.  Germany's  enemies  claim 
that  during  this  period  the  spirit  of  Lessing  and  Wie- 
land, Goethe  and  SchiUer,  Mozart  and  Beethoven,  Kant 
and  Fichte,  Schelling,  Hegel,  and  Schopenhauer,  Heine 
and  Mörike,  dominated.  But  this  was  not  the  real  rea- 
son. Germany  was  admired  because  at  that  time,  in 
spite  of  her  genius,  she  was  weak  and  broken  —  the 
great  German  Empire  was  crumbling;  the  Rhine 
"  Bund  '^  was  under  foreign  domination  and  the  German 
states  typified  indecision  and  political  division.  Now, 
on  the  other  hand,  Germany  was  strong  —  the  greatest 
military  power  in  Europe  —  and  was  hated  as  the 
mighty  always  are;  now  she  was  calumniated  because 
of  the  most  despicable  jealousy;  now  she  was  being  en- 


84  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

circled,  surrounded  by  frenzied  hatred  like  the  noble 
stag  surrounded  by  panting  dogs. 

II 

And  from  the  depths  of  the  German  people  rose  an 
immense  cry  of  anger.  All  the  apparent  and  the  hid- 
den potentialities  within  the  people  surged  as  in  ecstasy 
at  the  danger  that  threatened  from  West  and  East  and 
Korth,  from  Europe  and  Asia,  and  as  one  great  cry 
from  millions  of  throats  rang :  "  Germany  above  every- 
thing! Watch  on  the  Rhine,  v^atch  on  the  Vistula, 
watch  on  the  Baltic  and  the  North  Seas !  "  While  all 
the  bells  seemed  to  ring, 

Dies  irae,  dies  ilia 
solvet  seclum  in  favilla. 

The  first  characteristic  of  the  German  feeling  was  a 
state  of  general  exaltation,  the  like  of  which  was  not 
found  in  any  other  country.  This  high  nervous  tension 
could  be  noted  in  every  statement  from  leaders,  in 
every  private  letter  from  otherwise  peaceful  men  and 
women  —  there  reigned  an  enthusiasm,  a  self-sacrifice 
that  even  carried  away  opponents  like  the  Socialists  in 
the  Reichstag. 

While  a  passive  and  ignorant  army  was  being  driven 
to  the  front  in  Russia  —  an  army  of  which  79  per  cent, 
could  neither  read  nor  write,  and  while  France  began 


DIFFERE:N'T  POi:tTTS  of  view  85 

a  chase  for  les  emhusques  —  slackers  —  and  while  in 
England  volunteers  were  asked  to  enter  the  army  for 
nine  shillings  a  day.  in  Germany  not  only  conscripts 
but  volunteers,  old  and  young,  boys  and  men  past  middle 
age,  rushed  by  the  million  to  aid  the  fatherland,  one 
and  all  ready  to  suffer,  to  give  their  lives  to  their 
country. 

1863,  1870,  had  not  seen  such  a  unanimous  burst  of 
self-sacrifice.  All  phases  of  intellectual  and  senti- 
mental life  in  Germany  underwent  such  a  Steigerung, 
worked  up  to  such  a  pitch  that  it  carried  everything 
before  it.  Even  neutrals  on  German  territory  were 
smitten  by  it  and  were  impelled  to  take  part  in  a  war 
which  did  not  concern  them,  or  to  give  their  entire  for- 
tunes to  the  state,  in  certain  cases  all  they  had  scraped 
together  during  a  long  stay  in  a  foreign  land. 

The  exaltation  seemed  to  increase  proportionately 
with  each  additional  enemy,  and  wilder  grew  the  hatred, 
first  for  France  —  who  with  phrases  of  republican  lib- 
erty on  her  lips  had  allied  herself  with  Russia,  sold 
herself  to  the  most  brutal  autocracy  of  the  present  day 
— finally  against  what  an  otherwise  kindly  philoso- 
pher, Professor  Eucken,  in  anger  calls,  "  Serbian  mur- 
der-lust, Russian  despotism,  English  treachery,  and 
Japanese  knavishness." 

Russians  hatred  is  no  less  violent  than  Germany's. 
Incidentally  it  is  rather  interesting  to  note  that  the 
Russian  Tzar  in  these  troubled  times  has  seized  the  op- 


86  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

portunitj  of  rebaptising  his  country's  capital.  Many 
consider  it  wiser  to  leave  geographical  names  alone ;  the 
Tzar  is  evidently  not  of  that  opinion.  I^ow  that  he  is 
at  war  with  Germany  it  would  have  pained  him  to  have 
a  Germanic  root  in  the  name  of  his  city. 

It  is  rather  surprising,  however,  that  he  has  sup- 
planted the  Germanic  word  Burg  by  the  equally  Ger- 
manic word  Grad,  Grad  is  our  old  standby  Gaard,  old 
Danish  Gardh,  German  Garten,  the  same  which  is  found 
in  Novgorod  (Xewcourt)  in  Belgrade,  Hradschun,  etc.; 
a  word  brought  into  Slavonic  by  the  Varangians.  In- 
stinctively one  wonders  what  the  Russian  General  Ren- 
nenhampf  is  to  be  called  ?  Surely  he  too  must  acquire 
a  Russian  name. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  days  of  Alexander 
III  the  Tzar  upon  a  certain  occasion  was  present  at  a 
review  of  his  guards,  and  the  officers  were  presented 
one  by  one.  The  first  officer's  name  was  German,  the 
second  German,  the  third  and  fourth  also,  and  only  the 
fifth  had  one  of  the  beautiful  names  ending  in  of  or  ski, 
"  Thank  Heaven !  "  cried  the  Emperor  when  he  heard 
the  fifth  name.  And  yet  the  reigning  Romanofs  all 
come  from  Holstein. 

What  is  to  be  done  with  Russian  names  like  Todle- 
hen,  the  defender  of  Sebastopol?  Or  Buxthoven,  the 
Russian  ambassador  in  Copenhagen  ?  I^ames  of  places 
like  Scliliisselhurg,  Oranienhaum,  etc? 

It  will  be  rather  difficult  to  be  logical  throughout. 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  87 

In  this  connection  a  rather  clever  German  suggested 
Petrograd  should  really  have  been  called  Betrograd, 

III 

Soon,  however,  Germany  ceased  to  consider  Russia 
her  chief  enemy,  and  her  hatred  centred  on  England, 
pictured  as  having  rounded  up  the  hounds  now  being 
urged  on  the  noble  German  game.  This  feeling  finds 
characteristic  expression  in  statements  made  by  men  of 
standing  like  Hamack,  the  distinguished  theologian, 
for  instance.  "  England,^'  he  says,  "  is  hypocritical, 
England  is  mendacious,  England  is  tortured  with  envy 
of  Germany,  and  her  actions  are  based  on  the  vilest 
passion  of  greed.'' 

Hamack  believes  in  "  moral  armies."  England  has 
calumniated  Germany's  ''  herrliches  und  sittenstrenges 
Heer/' 

When  Great  Britain  declares  she  went  to  war  for 
Belgium's  neutrality,  this  is  "  the  lowest  of  all  pre- 
texts." She  had  no  other  motive  for  declaring  war 
than  her  statesmen's  intention  to  crush  Germany  or  ät 
least  weaken  it  so  that  England  could  rule  the  sea  alone. 
"  But  why  does  England  want  to  crush  us  ?  Because 
she  cannot  bear  to  see  our  strength,  our  thrift,  our  pros- 
perity. There  is  no  other  explanation."  And  with 
considerable  pride  Hamack  concludes  in  the  following 
inspired  words  founded  on  Germany's  inflated  and  ex- 
alted self-esteem :     "  If  we  fall,  which  God  and  our 


88  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

powerful  army  forbid,  then  the  higher  culture  of  the 
entire  hemisphere  goes  into  the  grave  with  us.  .  .  .'' 
^'  Great  Britain  allies  herself  with  Russia  against  Ger- 
many. What  does  it  mean?  lliat  Great  Britain  is 
tearing  down  the  barrier  which  has  saved  western  Eu- 
rope and  its  culture  from  the  Asiatic  desert.''  Harnack 
never  seems  to  have  heard  of  Germany's  friendship  for 
Russk,  which  dates  from  the  time  of  Frederic  Wil- 
liam III,  who  a  hundred  years  ago  was  Russia's  great- 
est ally  and  friend,  nor  does  he  seem  to  remember  that 
Bismarck,  after  the  most  intimate  bonds  between  Rus- 
sia and  Germany  had  snapped,  defended  in  the  Reich- 
stag Germany's  association  with  Russia  as  "  mountain 
high  above  all  attacks."  Alliance  with  Russia  is  now 
opprobrious  —  the  more  opprobrious  as  England 
thereby  betrays  her  own  race. 

Germany's  prominent  men  unanimously  call  Eng- 
land the  chief  enemy,  the  great  tragedy's  stage  director. 
They  all  consider  England  and  Germany  intellectual 
antipodes. 

Germany  has  always  tried  to  broaden  her  outlook; 
Goethe  was  the  first  to  create  the  word,  "  world  litera- 
ture." The  Englishman,  on  the  contrary  —  arrogant, 
narrow-minded  islander  —  looks  out  upon  the  world 
from  the  standpo-int  of  a  ruler  and  profiter. 

And  by  her  international  cable  system  England  now 
fills  the  world  with  her  hypocritical  lies.  The  world 
is  deceived  by  Britain's  mask  of  ^^  peaceful  apostle  of 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  89 

culture  and  unctuous  priest,"  according  to  the  German 
Professor  Otto  Hinze.  The  celebrated  philologist 
Wilamonitz-Moellendorf  joins  in  the  same  cbosus. 
"  We  all  know  that  England  stirred  France  and  Russia 
against  us  in  order  tp  crush  us.  .  .  .  English  diplomacy 
has  always  made  it  a  rule  to  violate  all  international 
and  individual  rights  under  a  cover  of  hypocritical  vir- 
tue .  .  .  and  now  it  tries  by  means  of  the  most  infa- 
mous lies  to  stir  up  the  world  against  us.  Not  a  true 
word  ever  crosses  Sir  Edward  Grey's  lips/'  The  cele- 
brated philosopher  William  Wundt  also  affirms  —  with- 
out mincing  words  —  that  England  fanned  the  flame 
which  caused  this  world  fire  and  conceived  the  "  dem- 
oniacal plan  "  of  crushing  Germany.  A  sad  phase  of 
the  war  is  that  it  is  waged  against  people  of  the  same 
race.  "  Compared  to  this,  what  do  we  care  about  the 
Belgians  who  in  their  dare-devil  blindness  seem  to  have 
gone  to  war  merely  to  show  the  world  they  were  not  fit 
to  be  a  nation !  "  According  to  the  well-kno^.vn  Franz 
von  Liszt,  England  has  been  the  motive  po.wer  in  the 
scheme  of  encirclement  Avhich  has  reigned  since  Ed- 
ward VII.  War  against  such  enemies  is  to  him  a 
''  holy  war."  ^^  Our  opponent's  strength  does  not 
frighten  us.     We  must  break  it ;  we  must  win.'' 

IV 

It  was  necessary  to  win  at  any  price.     The  English 
motto,  My  country,  right  or  wrong!  had  always  been 


90  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

sharply  criticised.  Now  it  was  tacitly  accepted.  As 
Harnack,  in  an  outburst  of  really  Jesuitic  ethics,  ex- 
claims, "  Belgium's  fate  was  as  justified  as  that  of  the 
shew-bread  stolen  by  David  when  starving."  There 
was,  presumably,  this  difference :  the  loaves  did  not  suf- 
fer when  they  were  eaten,  whereas  the  Belgians  suffered 
considerably  in  being  shot. 

The  Germans  did  not  lack  accusations  to  hurl  at 
England.  In  reply,  for  instance,  to  England's  touch- 
ing solicitude  for  small  nations,  Germany  asked  if  Eng- 
land had  shown  it  vis  a  vis  the  Boer  republics,  or  if 
at  the  present  time  she  had  ever  heard  of  Finland  and 
the  fate  which  her  ally,  Russia,  held  in  store  for  this 
little  country.  Regarding  England's  solicitude  about 
Serbia's  sovereignty,  it  was  asked  what  England  thought 
about  Persia's  sovereignty  when  it  was  abolished  by 
both  England  and  Russia,  who  divided  the  country  be- 
tween them.  Ana  how  about  Egypt?  In  reply  to 
England's  assertion  that  she  was  fighting  for  freedom 
and  civilisation  it  was  asked  if  strengthening  the  most 
reactionary  autocracy  on  earth  was  what  England  meant 
by  championing  liberty  and  progress. 

Never  did  Germany  (any  more  than  France  or  Eng- 
land) assert  that  nations  are  not  moved  by  moral  con- 
siderations but  by  political  ones.  When  Germans  pro- 
claimed so  loudly  they  had  never  wanted  anything  but 
peace,  Bemhardi's  and  other  typical  writings  seemed 
to  slip  their  mind  entirely.     When  they  claimed  to  be 


DIFFERENT  POINTS  OF  VIEW  91 

carrying  on  a  war  of  defence  they  ignored  the  propa- 
ganda of  decades  as  to  the  need  of  an  offensive-defensive 
war. 

When  Germany  spoke  of  England's  attacks  on  Den- 
mark in  1801  and  1807  as  dastardly,  1864  was  never 
mentioned,  although,  in  the  history  of  a  people,  the 
monetary  loss  of  a  fleet  (as  inflicted  by  England  in 
1807-08)  is  as  nothing  compared  with  the  loss  of  three 
provinces  (taken  by  Germany  in  1864). 

When  Germany  appealed  to  the  sympathy  of  neutrals 
because  of  the  overwhelming  odds  she  was  fighting 
against,  she  seemed  to  have  forgotten  that  when  Austria 
and  Prussia  attacked  Denmark,  this  little  nation  had  to 
fight  against  odds  which,  comparatively  speaking,  were 
four  or  five  times  greater  than  those  which  Germany  is 
now  fighting.  And  most  assuredly  at  that  time  not  an 
eye  grew  moist  in  Austria  or  Prussia  in  sympathy  with 
Denmark.  In  other  words,  German  statesmen,  as  well 
as  English,  are  actuated  by  political  motives,  not 
by  ideals  of  chivalry  or  morality.  And  as  statesmen 
this  is  probably  their  duty. 

In  the  meantime  with  enthusiastic  unanimity,  for- 
getting all  political  and  class  differences,  the  German 
people  cry :  "  We  are  one  and  united,  we  who  never 
before  were  united.  We  are  united,  in  the  present, 
and  with  the  dream  of  our  fathers,  in  the  past ;  we  are 
still  Goethe's  and  Beethoven's  people.  We  are  a  nation 
in  arms,  armed  for  defence ;  we  are  not  militaristic  nor 


92  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

are  we  the  enemies  of  culture.  They  call  us  barbarians 
because  they  do  not  want  to  admit  that  we  are  a  nation 
of  scientists  and  a  nation  of  the  future.  We  are  the 
most  highly  organised  nation  that  exists.  We  were 
loved  as  long  as  we  were  weak.  JS'ow  they  hate  and 
envy  u?  because  they  cannot  help  admiring  us  in  secret. 
We  are  the  new  forces  in  humanity,  as  opposed  to 
France  and  England's  old  civilisation.  We  represent 
the  old,  classical  civilisation  in  opposition  to  Russia  and 
Japan's  imitation  of  JEuropean  culture.  As  theorists 
we  are  the  only  nation  that  knows  what  thorough  pre- 
paredness means;  and  in  carrying  out  our  theories  we 
have  shown  that  we  possess  daring  initiative.  Not 
merely  in  science  and  in  ethics,  but  in  every  phase  of 
theory  and  practice,  have  we  shown  ourselves  infinitely 
superior  to  our  enemies." 


conditio:n^s  in  Russian  Poland 

(October,  1914) 

I 

Introduction 

The  immense  losses  of  the  war  may  be  easily  reck- 
oned. The  advantages  which  are  eventually  to  come 
out  of  it,  and  which  the  various  nations  see  in  their 
dreams,  are  too  uncertain  to  be  counted  on.  Yet  those 
who  sympathise  with  the  Polish  people  for  their  broken 
national  life  have  seen  outlined  the  possibility  of  uniting 
the  thrice-divided  people  as  a  free  state,  probably  under 
the  protection  of  one  of  the  great  Powers. 

But  this  is  still  far  off,  and  meanwhile  the  Poles  are 
obliged  to  fight  in  the  Russian,  Prussian,  and  Austrian 
armies;  that  is  to  say,  against  one  another.  There  have 
been  no  revolts  either  in  Prussian  Poland,  the  Russian 
"  Kingdom,^'  or  in  Austrian  Galicia.  Indeed,  one  may 
say  that  the  internal  splitting  of  the  Polish  people  is 
deeper  than  ever  at  the  present  moment.  For  the  very 
spirit  of  the  nation  seems  to  be  divided. 

The  only  thing  that  points  toward  a  possible  reunion 

is  the  manifesto  to  the  Poles  made  by  the  Russian  Com- 

93 


^/ 


94  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

mander-in-Chief,  Grand  Duke  Nicholas,  about  the  mid- 
dle of  August.  It  began:  ^' Poles !  The  hour  has 
struck  to  realise  jour  fathers'  and  grandfathers'  holy 
dream.  Tear  down  the  barriers  separating  the  Polish 
people !  Let  it  be  united  under  the  sceptre  of  the  Tzar ! 
LTnder  this  sceptre  Poland  shall  be  reborn  and  free  in 
religion,  language,  and  government."  And  it  con- 
cluded :  "  The  dawn  of  new  life  is  before  you.  Let 
the  sign  of  the  cross  glow  in  this  dawn,  as  a  symbol  of 
the  people's  suffering  and  resurrection." 

Although  this  manifesto  with  its  astonishing  love  of 
liberty  was  plainly  inspired  by  the  necessities  of  the 
moment  and  in  spite  of  the  distrust  with  which  one 
receives  assurances  of  liberty  or  reforms  made  by  the 
Russian  Government  (since  such  promises  have  never 
been  kept  in  Finland  nor  in  Russia),  the  appeal 
made  a  certain  impression.  It  seemed  an  expression 
of  the  spirit  of  the  times,  and  of  a  nature  to  impress 
the  masses  accustomed  to  hearing  the  authorities  class 
as  high  treason  the  very  things  which  were  now  called 
the  "  holy  dream  of  your  fathers."  •- 

The  purpose  of  the  manifesto  was  to  prevent  an  in- 
surrection in  Russian  Poland  at  a  time  when  enemy 
troops  were  entering  the  country.  It  seems  to  have 
made  little  impression  on  the  Austrian  Poles.  As  they 
are  independent  in  Galicia  and  have  witnessed  for  more 
than  a  century  the  brutal  oppression  of  their  brothers 
in  Russian  Poland,  their  reply  to  the  manifesto  was  a 


co]^ditio:n^s  m  Russian  polakd    95 

vociferous  protest  of  fidelity  to  the  house  of  Hapshurg. 
Indeed,  even  the  SoJcol  associations  which  in  times  of 
peace  (with  some  final  issue  in  view)  had  been  training 
young  men  to  sports  and  the  use  of  arms,  offered  to 
form  Polish  legions  to  help  Austria  overthrow  the  Rus- 
sians. That  was  not  all.  The  Ruthenian  inhabitants 
of  Galicia  (half  the  population  of  the  country)  formed 
an  association  for  the  liberation  of  Ukraine,  and  since 
the  25th  of  AugTist  have  flooded  Europe  with  docu- 
ments and  publications  of  anti-Russian  tendencies. 

The  impression  which  the  manifesto  made  in  Posen 
is  hard  to  determine,  as  every  anti-Prussian  expression 
would  be  considered  high  treason  and  punished  accord- 
ingly. 

In  the  meantime  the  German  Emperor,  following 
Russia's  example,  has  wooed  the  good-will  of  Poland 
and  tried  to  win  it  over  to  his  side  by  alluring  promises. 

A  month  after  the  Tzar's  manifesto  a  proclamation 
by  Lieutenant  General  von  Morgen  was  posted  in  the 
districts  of  Lomza  and  Warsaw.  In  it  he  said,  among 
other  things: 

"Rise  and  help  me  crush  the  Russian  barbarians! 
They  made  serfs  of  you !  Drive  them  out  of  your  beau- 
tiful country  which  must  regain  its  political  and  reli- 
gious liberty !  Such  is  the  gTacious  wish  of  my  mighty 
Emperor !  " 

When  one  thinks  how  cruelly  the  Poles  have  been 
driven  from  Posen  and  how  ruthlessly  their  language 


96  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

has  been  persecuted,  this  proclamation  shows  that  the 
Emperor  felt  the  need  of  going  the  Tzar  one  better. 

As  far  as  one  can  see,  ,the  intellectuals  in  Russian 
Poland  received  the  Russian  manifesto  with  some  in- 
credulity. Russian  and  Austrian  Poland  were  for  a 
time  violently  pitted  against  one  another,  each  accusing 
the  other  of  having  betrayed  the  fatherland's  holy  cause, 
until  a  new  party  was  formed,  politically  most  undevel- 
oped and  therefore  extremely  popular.  Its  motto  is: 
"  We  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  either  Russia  or 
Austria.  We  want  one  thing  only:  an  independent 
Polish  nation,  freed  from  the  guardianship  of  any  other 
country."  In  other  words,  "  We  want  the  impossible." 
A  nation  necessarily  pays  the  penalty  of  being  deprived 
of  political  liberty  for  nearly  a  hundred  years.  Politi- 
cal ambitions  under  such  conditions  either  degenerate 
into  petty  local  squabbles  and  politics,  or  else  remain  in 
a  state  of  perpetual  infancy.  Why  cry  out  in  chorus: 
"  Polonia  farä  da  se  "  f  That  Poland  under  present 
conditions  is  unable  to  stand  alone,  is  evident  to  any 
one  with  a  jot  of  political  insight. 

Still  I  am  inclined  to  say  it  matters  little  what  forms 
the  desire  for  liberty  may  take,  since  a  cleansing  storm 
seems  rushing  through  Polish  intellects. 

In  1812,  too,  a  bright  future  seemed  to  loom  for 
Poland,  when  IN'apoleon  began  the  second  Polish  cam- 
paign, and  again  in  1830  when  all  Europe  sympa- 
thised with  the  Poles,  and  in  1848  and  1863.     But 


coi^DiTioNS  m  kussia:n'  Poland    9Y 

never  have  cruel  barriers  seemed  as  crumbling  as  in 
this  present  great  and  terrible  crisis,  and  he  who  has 
followed  the  history  of  Poland  surmises  how  anxiously 
Polish  hearts  are  beating,  throbbing  and  glowing  with 
hope  and  the  highest  ideals. 

Yet  at  this  moment  conditions  in  Poland  are  more 
desperate  than  they  have  ever  been  before,  even  imder 
war  or  rebellion.  And  this  is  not  due  to  the  war  in 
general,  nor  to  outside  conditions.  The  Poles  them- 
selves are  entirely  to  blame.  The  wind  of  nationalistic 
madness  which  whirls  over  the  world  has  poisoned 
Polish  brains,  driving  out  all  magnanimity  and  hu- 
manity —  not  to  mention  reason  (which  in  the  year 
1914  has,  on  the  whole,  little  to  pride  itself  upon  in 
Europe). 

I  may  truthfully  say  that  I  have  never  been  so  car- 
ried away  by  any  people  as  by  the  Poles.  I  expressed 
my  enthusiasm  for  the  country  before  it  became  the 
order  of  the  day  and  when  very  few  shared  my  opin- 
ions. I  had  no  thought  of  ingratiating  myself  with 
the  Poles,  or  of  bringing  my  book  to  their  attention. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  they  did  not  discover  it  until  ten 
years  later,  when  it  was  accidentally  translated  into 
German.  Writing  in  Danish  is,  on  the  whole,  like  writ- 
ing in  water. 

It  would  be  most  ungrateful  of  me,  now  that  I  am. 
going  to  speak  sharply  to  the  Poles,  if  I  did  not  ac- 
knowledge the  exceptional  friendship  and  kindness  I 


98  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

have  met  with  in  Russian  and  Austrian  Poland. 
There  I  have  found  incomparable  friends.  And  for 
this  reason  I  long  refrained  from  making  an  unkind 
remark  about  the  country.  In  1898  I  refused  to  act  as 
spokesman  for  the  Ruthenians  against  the  Poles,  and 
made  bitter  enemies  of  the  Ruthenian  leaders  who 
never  ceased  attacking  me,  and  I  was  dumb  as  a  wall 
when  Bjömstjerne  Bjömson,  shortly  before  he  died, 
attacked  the  Poles  at  the  Ruthenians'  request.  For- 
tunately his  attacks  were  so  exaggerated  that  they  could 
do  little  harm.  Bjömson  contended  that  the  Poles  were 
akin  to  the  devil  himself,  somewhat  as  he  was  conceived 
in  the  Middle  Ages.  I  knew  more  about  elections  and 
electoral  pressure  in  Galicia  than  Bjömson,  yet  I  re- 
mained silent  because  I  considered  it  beneath  me  to 
attack  a  people  placed  in  a  situation  so  difficult  that  it 
could  defend  minor  injustices  as  necessary  expedients. 
I  found  it  particularly  impossible  to  attack  the  Poles 
to  whom  I  considered  myself  bound  by  honour,  and 
who  filled  me  with  the  warmest  and  most  sincere  sym- 
pathy. 

It  is  therefore  with  a  heavy  heart  that  I  am  writing 
these  lines. 

The  very  essence  of  the  Russian  regime  is  to  deny 
the  Jews  all  rights.  Every  now  and  then  Europe  is 
shocked  at  a  very  awful  mass  murder  of  innocent  Jews 
as  in  Kishinef,  for  instance,  but  even  in  normal 
times  Russia  crowds  her  Jewish  population  into  the 


coNDiTio:Nrs  m  Russian  Poland    99 

Polish  extremes  of  her  territory,  packs  them  together 
so  tightly  they  can  neither  live  nor  die,  forbids  all  right 
to  move,  to  study.  Even  the  privilege  of  studying  at 
schools  and  universities  is  denied  them  over  and  be- 
yond a  much  too  small  percentage.  Only  Jews  with 
university  degrees  are  allowed  to  live  in  the  capital; 
no  young  Jewish  woman  is  permitted  to  live  near  the 
universities  in  St.  Petersburg  or  Moscow  unless  she  has 
registered  as  a  prostitute  and  received  a  prostitute^ s 
card.  Frequently  the  police  drag  her  to  court  if  she 
does  not  live  up  to  her  profession  but  prefers  to  read 
learned  books.  A  Jew  who  is  a  doctor  of  laws,  for  in- 
stance, may  move  to  Moscow,  and  if  he  is  married  he 
may  bring  his  wife  along.  But  if  the  couple  have  a 
child  more  than  two  years  old,  it  cannot  remain  with 
them.  For  the  child  is  not  authorised  to  stay  in  the 
capital.  Neither  is  it  allowed  to  travel  with  the  mother 
in  cars  or  railroads.  Only  by  special  authorisation 
can  the  parents  keep  the  child;  and  to  obtain  such  au- 
thorisation a  detailed  application  must  be  sent  to  the 
Governor-General,  who  has  the  power  to  grant  or  refuse 
it. 

In  Eussia  the  plundering  and  murder  of  Jewish  i  i- 
habitants  may  in  a  measure  be  excused  through  the 
peasants'  almost  incredible  ignorance.  Maxime  Kova- 
levski,  Russia's  greatest  political  economist,  told  me 
that  when  the  elections  to  the  first  Duma  were  tak- 
ing place  he  learned  that  every  one  of  the  peasants  on 


100  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

the  estate  had  voted  for  himself.  When  Kovalevski, 
surprised,  asked  them  why  they  had  done  this,  and  tried 
to  explain  that  in  this  way  no  one  would  be  elected, 
they  replied  by  asking  if  a  deputy  was  not  a  man  who 
received  so-and-so-many  rubles  a  day  ? 

''  Yes." 

^^  Do  you  think  we  would  let  so  much  money  go  to 
another  when  we  might  get  it  ourselves  ?  " 

The  same  distinguished  man  told  me  that  one  day 
he  asked  some  of  his  peasants  whether  they  had  really 
participated  in  a  pogrom  in  the  neighbouring  village. 
He  could  scarcely  believe  it  as  they  seemed  so  good- 
natured.  To  his  surprise  they  replied,  '^  Yes,"  adding, 
"  You  know  why."  And  they  explained  they  had  killed 
the  Jews  because  the  Jews  had  killed  their  Saviour. 

Said  Kovalevski,  "  But  that  was  a  long  time  ago,  and 
not  these  Jews."  The  peasants  replied  in  astonish- 
ment: "A  long  time  ago?  We  thought  they  did  it 
last  week !  " 

It  seems  they  had  gathered  from  the  Pope's  explana- 
tion that  the  crucifixion  had  taken  place  there  on  the 
spot,  a  few  days  before. 

Xo  atrocity  causes  surprise  under  such  conditions. 
But  to  see  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  spread  to  Russian 
Poland  where  people  know  how  to  read  and  write,  that 
is  unbelievable.  Most  of,  the  Jewish  families  in  the 
"  Kingdom  "  have  been  established  there  since  Casimir 
the  Great  (1309-70)  out  of  devotion  to  his  morganatic 


CONDITIOi^S  m  RUSSIAN  POLAI^D      101 

wife  Esther  allowed  tlie  Jews  to  find  refuge  in  his  coun- 
try and  to  live  there  under  humane  conditions.  Their 
numbers  increased  when  the  Tzars  drove  their  Jewish 
population  into  this  territory.  What  the  Jews  have 
suffered  during  these  centuries  is  inconceivable  and  even 
to  this  day  they  are  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
and  must  wear  distinctive  dress  as  the  Jews  in  Denmark 
at  the  time  of  Holberg,  and  in  England  in  Shakespeare's 
day. 

The  Polish  Jews,  however,  have  always  shared  the 
sufferings  of  the  Polish  nationalists.  In  1794  a  corps 
of  Jewish  volunteers  fought  under  Kosciuszko;  their 
colonel  fell  in  1809.  In  1830,  however,  a  bigoted 
Polish  National  Government  refused  the  Jews  admis- 
sion to  the  army.  When  the  Jews  later  on  dared  to 
ask  for  the  same  educational  advantages  as  the  rest  of 
the  population,  Nicholas  1  pun' shed  them  by  banishing 
36,000  families  to  the  steppes  of  South  Russia,  where 
they  were  hit  by  child  conscription.  All  their  little 
boys  from  the  age  of  six  were  sent  under  Cossack  guard 
to  Archangel  to  be  trained  as  sailors.  Most  of  them 
died  on  the  way. 

Poland's  great  misery  served,  for  a  time,  to  muzzle 
the  hatred  for  the  Jews  which  always  slumbers  in  the 
masses.  And  Poland's  distinguished  men  tried  to  pre- 
vent it  from  rising.  Poland's  greatest  poet,  Adam 
Mickiewicz,  in  his  masterpiece,  the  national  epic  of 
Poland,  Pan  Taadeuz   (1834),  made  the  Jewish  inn- 


102  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

keeper  one  of  the  most  s;)Tnpathetic  figures  in  tlie  poem. 
He  is  presented  in  the  fourth  song  as  a  musical  genius, 
a  master  of  the  national  instrument,  the  cymbal,  and 
the  poem  culminates  when  Jankiel  plays  the  Dom- 
browski  march  for  Dombrowski  himself.  Indeed  the 
history  of  Poland  from  1791-1812  seems  crystallised, 
symbolised  in  the  poem  which  seems  to  throb  and  vibrate 
with  the  spirit  of  the  !N'apoleonic  year  in  which  the 
scene  is  laid. 

At  about  1860  Jews  and  Catholics  were  equals  in 
Warsaw,  and  when  in  February,  1861,  the  crowds  kneel- 
ing in  the  two  great  public  squares  singing  the  na- 
tional anthem  were  shot  upon  by  the  Russians,  the  Jews 
tried  by  an  unmistakable  demonstration  to  show  their 
national  spirit.  In  swarms  they  followed  their  rabbis 
into  the  Catholic  churches,  while  masses  of  Christians 
crowded  into  the  synagogues  singing  the  same  national 
h^Tnn. 

This  last  trait  —  the  two  races  seeking  each  other's 
churches  to  sing  the  same  stirring  anthem  —  made  such 
an  impression  on  the  great  lN"orwegian  author,  Henrik 
Ibsen,  that  he  frequently  referred  to  it  as  one  of  the 
most  beautiful  and  inspiring  manifestations  he  had  ever 
heard  of. 

And  now  because  of  the  maelstrom  of  insanity  which 
nationalism  lets  loose  over  Europe,  all  fellow-feeling  is 
lost,  and  religious  tolerance  gives  way  to  burning  race 
hatred. 


COJ^DITIONS  IN  KÜSSIAN  POLAND      103 


FACTS 


In  1912  a  deputy  from  Warsaw  was  to  be  elected  to 
the  Duma.  The  population  of  the  city  is  somewhere 
betw^een  sevejL  and  eight  hundred  thousand,  and  as  the 
Jewish  element  numbers  about  three  hundred  thousand, 
it  was  in  their  power  to  elect  a  Jewish  representative. 
As  Polish  nationalists,  however,  the  Jews  renounced 
this  right.  They  felt  that  Warsaw,  the  capital  of  the 
Polish  Kingdom,  should  be  represented  by  a  man  of 
Polish  race  as  w^ell  as  spirit.  They  simply  asked  that 
the  electoral  committee  should  nominate  a  candidate 
who  would  not  be  an  enemy  of  the  Jews.  The  com- 
mittee arrogantly  refused  to  consider  the  Jews,  or  to 
confer  with  them,  and  nominated  a  decidedly  anti- 
Semitic  candidate,  Kucharzewski,  who  had  publicly  de- 
clared he  would  like  to  be  elected  to  the  Duma  in  order 
to  rid  Poland  of  Jews. —  It  is,  by  the  way,  interesting 
to  note  that  the  word  rid,  ''  avsrotten,"  which  the  Poles 
cursed  thirty  years  ago  in  the  days  of  Bismarck  and 
Eduard  von  Hartmann,  has  now  acquired  a  place  of 
honour  and  glides  across  their  lips  with  incredible 
ease. 

As  the  Jews  naturally  could  not  vote  for  such  a  man, 
they  asked  the  electoral  committee  to  choose  another 
candidate  who  would  not  be  opposed  to  them.  This 
very  natural  request  was  curtly  denied  and  Kucharzew- 
ski's  candidature  maintained.     The  result  of  this  was 


104  THE  WORLD  AT  WAB 

that  the  Jews  felt  bound  to  seek  another  candidate  o£ 
Polish  origin,  suited  to  the  office  and  not  opposed  to 
them»  In  spite  of  their  sincere  efforts  they  did  not  suc- 
ceed in  finding  such  a  man.  At  the  last  moment,  after 
all  their  efforts  had  proved  fruitless,  the  Social  Demo- 
crat Jagello  declared  he  consented  to  seek  nomination 
as  the  Jewish  candidate. 

In  their  eyes  his  only  virtue  was  his  pure  Polish 
descent.  As  all  the  leading  Jews  belong  to  the  higher 
middle  classes,  they  did  not  share  Jagello's  views,  but 
political  conditions  obliged  them  to  back  him.  Lord 
IJeaconsfield  always  insisted  that  the  Jewish  race  po- 
litically inclines  toward  conservatism  but  that  short- 
sighted politicians  instead  of  encouraging  the  Jews' 
conservative  aspirations,  oblige  them  to  cast  their  votes 
with  tlie  most  extreme  members  of  the  opposition.  Here 
this  fact  was  proved. 

Jagello  was  elected. 

The  leading  men  in  Russian  Poland  who  since  the 
beginning  of  the  century  had  been  against  the  Jews  — 
even  if  clandestinely,  in  order  not  to  shock  European 
sensibilities  —  took  advantage  of  this  forced  Jewish 
electoral  victory  to  throw  aside  the  mask  and  openly  ap- 
pear as  violent  anti-Semitics.  The  so-called  '^  co-oper- 
ative movement "  organised  during  the  last  twelve  years, 
which  at  bottom  was  nothing  else  than  a  means  of  crush- 
ing Jewish  business,  now  began  to  be  systematically  and 
cruelly  turned  into  a  boycotting  of  the  Jewish  popula- 


CONDITIONS  m  EUSSIAN  POLAND      105 

tion.  In  private  as  well  as  in  public  life,  tlie  cry  rang 
out :  "  Don't  buy  from  the  Jews !  Have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Jews !  " 

At  the  head  of  this  moveiiieut  wore  Polisii  intel- 
lectuals, some  of  Poland's  most  noted  writers,  among 
them  confirmed  free  thinkers  like  Alexandre  Swiento- 
chowski.  Literature  shows  many  conversions,  meta- 
morphoses scarcely  inferior  to  those  of  Ovid,  and  he 
who  for  half  a  century  has  been  witness  to  most  authors' 
lack  of  character  is  not  easily  surprised  by  any  renega- 
tion.  But  that  I  should  see  Alexandre  Swientochow- 
ski,  the  author  of  Chawa  Rubin,  the  most  ruthless  op- 
ponent of  nationalism,  who  in  his  youth  suffered  not  a 
little  because  of  his  advanced  opinions,  appear  as  anti- 
Semitic  leader,  that  I  would  have  staked  my  life  could 
never  happen.  Not  only  do  all  Alexandre  Swiento- 
chowski's  T^Titings  rise  up  against  him,  but  all  the  fiery 
words  which  fell  from  his  lips  in  his  days  of  glory  now 
turn  against  him. 

The  entire  Polish  press  gave  itself  over  to  this  anti- 
Semitic  campaign.  Young  Polish  ruflSans  were  placed 
before  Jewish  shops  and  maltreated  Christian  women 
and  children  who  attempted  to  buy  there.  By  the  as- 
sistance of  the  celebrated  Dmowski,  leader  of  the  Na- 
tional-Democratic party,  a  new  paper,  Dwa  Oroszi,  was 
founded  which  openly  advocated  pogroms.  Bloody 
encounters  soon  took  place.  In  the  little  town  of  Welun 
the  peasants  during  the  night  poured  naphtha  over  the 


106  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

house  of  a  Jew  and  set  fire  to  it,  and  a  large  family 
perished  in  the  flames.  Similar  incidents  occurred  in 
various  other  places,  until  the  Russian  Government 
stopped  the  pogrom  tendency  so  as  not  to  strengthen 
Polish  nationalism. 

Polish  priests  in  the  villages  stirred  the  people  to 
boycott  and  make  war  on  the  Jews.  After  the  ver- 
dict in  the  Beilis  aftair  in  Kieff,  the  extra  editions  of 
the  Polish  newspapers  agreed  that  although  Beilis  was 
free,  the  ritual  murder  had  been  fully  proved  ( !) 
Beilis  is  to  this  day  a  term  of  abuse  for  Jews  in  Poland. 

Under  these  conditions  the  Jews  in  Russian  Poland 
appealed  to  certain  leading  men,  whose  names  were  so 
well  known  or  whose  character  was  so  above  reproach 
that  they  could  not  be  ignored.  A  relative  of  the  great 
Mickiewicz,  Wadislaw  Mickiewicz,  and  a  few  other 
prominent  men  called  together  a  meeting  in  Warsaw  to 
try  to  bring  about  internal  peace.  In  vain  he  begged 
and  pleaded,  at  last  amid  tears,  that  his  countrymen, 
surrounded  as  they  were  by  outside  enemies,  should  not 
go  against  the  Jews  who  had  always  been  their  friends. 
'Not  a  single  Polish  paper  reported  his  speech. 

All  this  happened  before  the  war,  and  the  direct  re- 
sult was  the  economic  ruin  of  the  Russian-Polish  Jews. 
But  during  the  war  the  hatred  for  Jews  has  flamed  up 
again,  and  so  far  the  Russian  Government  has  not  done 
anything  to  stop  or  put  out  the  fire. 

During  the  mobilisation  several  Polish  papers,  the 


co:f^DiTioNS  IN  kussia:n^  polai^d    107 


Olos  Lubeski,  published  in  large  type  the  alarming  news 
of  ^^  Immense  Pogi'oms  against  Jews  in  England.  The 
English  Government  makes  no  effort  to  stop  them." 
The  lie  was  evident.  But  the  object  was  to  establish 
a  precedent. 

When  gold  and  silver  grew  scarce  owing  to  the  war, 
Polish  papers  accused  the  Jews  of  hiding  the  precious 
metals.  Investigation  proved  that  several  non-Jewish 
business  people  (the  rich  Pole  Ignaszewski  in  Lublin, 
for  instance)  had  secreted  sacks  of  gold  and  silver. 
They  were  severely  punished,  of  course,  but  not  a  single 
Jew  was  found  guilty  of  any  such  action. 

]^evertheless  the  Jews  were  accused  of  having  smug- 
gled a  million  and  a  half  rubles  of  gold  into  Germany 
in  a  coffin.  And  while  the  Jewish  representatives  and 
priests  in  Warsaw  protested,  and  their  protest  was 
printed  in  Pussia,  it  was  not  carried  in  a  single  Polish 
paper. 

All  this  led  up  to  pogroms.  Many  other  prepara- 
tions were  made.  The  anti-Semites  had  a  proclamation 
printed  in  Yiddish  wherein  the  Jews  were  urged  to  rise 
against  Russia.  They  had  this  bill  posted  in  the  streets 
of  all  the  different  towns  and  placed  in  the  pockets  of 
unsuspecting  Jews;  those  who  distributed  the  papers 
then  signalled  the  victims  to  the  police.  All  who  were 
found  with  the  proclamation  in  their  pockets  were  shot 
on  the  spot. 

Finally,  as  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  Jews  were  ac- 


108  THE  WORtD  AT  WAR 

cused  of  polluting  the  wells.  If  a  few  Cossacks  or  other 
Eussian  soldiers  died,  the  Jews  and  their  poisoned  wells 
were  blamed. 

The  principal  accusation  was,  nevertheless,  that  of 
espionage.  It  was  made  to  serve  when  Austrian  troops 
conquered  a  town  or  a  village  as  well  as  when  Russian 
troops  drove  away  the  Austrians.  The  result  was  the 
same  in  either  case.  A  certain  number  of  Jews  were 
conscientiously  shot  by  Russians  or  by  Austrians.  Lists 
of  those  really  guilty  of  espionage  were  compiled. 
Aristocratic  Polish  names  were  on  this  list  —  a  Potocki, 
for  instance,  who  was  doomed  to  death ;  but  the  list  did 
not  contain  a  single  Jewish  name. 

Accusations  against  the  Jews  are  generally  thought 
true,  however,  as  the  Jew  for  nearly  two  thousand  years 
has  been  called  a  Judas. 

The  Judas  legend  may  without  exaggeration  be  called 
the  most  imbecile  that  ever  sprung  out  of  the  Dark 
Ages,  and  that  it  ever  found  credence  is  a  proof  of  hu- 
manity's indescribable  simple-mindedness.  Few  leg- 
ends so  clearly  bear  the  stamp  of  falsehood  and  few  have 
caused  such  a  sum  of  suffering  and  horrors  throughout 
the  centuries.  It  has  martyred  and  murdered  hundreds 
of  thousands. 

The  very  foundation  of  the  story  is  impossible.  Ac- 
cording to  it  a  being  with  supernatural  qualities,  a  god 
or  demi-god,  day  in  and  day  out  wanders  about  and 
speaks  in  the  open  air  in  a  city  and  its  environs.     He 


COl^DITIONS  m  RUSSIAN  POLAND      109 

makes  so  little  attempt  to  hide  that  he  entered  the  city 
the  previous  day  at  noon  under  the  acclamations  of  the 
inultitude.  He  is  known  by  each  and  every  one;  by 
every  woman  and  every  child.  Not  alone  does  he  not 
hide,  but  wanders  about,  followed  by  disciples  who 
preach  during  the  day,  and  at  night  he  sleeps  in  their 
midst.  And  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  necessary  to 
bribe  one  of  these  men  to  point  him  out  and  to  betray 
him  —  and  for  effect  —  by  a  kiss !  If  he  had  been  hid- 
ing in  a  cellar  there  would  have  been  a  reason  for  such 
a  legend.  But  as  things  were,  those  who  sought  him 
need  only  to  have  asked :  Which  of  you  is  Jesus  ?  He 
would  not  have  denied  his  name. 

Judas  is  therefore  not  only  more  superfluous  than 
the  fifth  wheel  of  a  wagon,  but  an  absurdity,  sprung 
from  the  desire  of  placing  a  dark  traitor  of  night  in 
opposition  to  the  white  spirit  of  light.  It  also  springs 
from  the  growing  Jew  hatred  of  the  early  heathen- 
Christians,  who  eventually  succeeded  in  making  people 
forget  that  Jesus,  all  the  apostles  and  all  the  evangel- 
ists, as  well,  were  Jews  just  as  much  as  this  Judas. 

Throughout  the  centuries,  nevertheless,  Judas  —  as 
the  name  reads  —  has  become  the  Jew,  the  traitor,  the 
spy,  in  the  minds  of  the  masses. 

Even  as  recently  as  the  nineties  Captain  Dreyfus 
fell  as  a  victim  of  the  same  old  legend. 

Now  it  is  being  boiled  over  again  to  serve  against  the 
Jews  in  Russian  Polaud. 


110  THE  WOELD  AT  WAH 

By  means  of  this  Judas  and  many  other  frightful 
accusations  pogroms  have  spread  over  great  stretches 
of  Russian  Poland.  Galiciä  and  Posen  have  so  far 
been  un -effected  by  the  agitations  of  which  there  has 
been  no  dearth.  Many  hundred  innocent  people 
have  been  sacrificed.  A  few  examples  among  the 
manv. 

In  the  city  of  Bychawa,  which  was  taken  by  the  Aua- 
trians,  some  leading Tolish  citizens  took  sides  with  the 
Austrian  leaders  and  accused  the  J^ws  of  having  a  se- 
cret communication  with  thcTPuskian  army.  Conse- 
quently the  Austrians  shot  a  sixty-sevön-year-old  man 
by  the  name  of  Wallstein  and  his  seventeen-year-old 
son.-  When  the  Austrians  were  driven  away  shortly 
after  this  the  same  Polish  citizens  informed  the  Russian 
commanders  that  the  Jews  in  the  city  communicated 
with  the  Austrians  and  had  given  them  supplies  so  as 
to  deprive  the  Russians  of  them.  As  a  result  many 
Jews  were  shot  and  their  houses  burned. 

In  the  cities  of  Janow  an^  Krasnick  the  Jews  were 
accused  of  having  laid  mines  to  harm  the  Russians. 
The  Jews  (ai^ng  them  many  children)  were  hung  on 
telegraph  poles  and  the  two  cities  were  destroyed. 

The  city  of  Samosch  was  conquered  by  Austrian 
Sokol  troops,  these  handsome  and  lithe  people  whom  no 
one  can  forget  if  he  has  seen  them  exercise  in  their 
capital  in  Galicia,  Wlien  the  Russian  army  recon- 
quered the  city,  the  Poles  accused  the  Jews  of  co-operat- 


coi^DiTio:N's  m  russiak  Poland    hi 

ing  with  the  Austrians.  Twelve  Jews  were  arrested. 
As  they  denied  their  guilt,  they  were  doomed  to  death. 
Five  were  hung.  In  the  midst  of  the  hanging  a  Rus- 
sian pope,  with  a  picture  of  the  Madonna  in  his  hand, 
came  and  swore  the  Jews  were  innocent  and  that  it 
was  all  an  outburst  of  Polish  Jew  hatred.  He  proved 
that  the  Poles  had  helped  the  Austrians  and  that  they 
even  had  telephone  connections  with  Lemberg.  The 
remaining  seven  Jews  were  acquitted.  But  five  had 
already  been  hung. 

In  the  city  of  Jusefow  the  Jews  were  accused  of  hav- 
ing poisoned  the  wells  so  that  a  hundred  Cossacks  lost 
their  lives.  Seventy-eight  Jews  were  killed,  many 
women  violated,  houses  and  stores  looted. 

Similar  occurrences  happened  and  are  happening 
daily  by  the  hundred.  In  this  way  greater  or  smaller 
pogroms  with  ensuing  murder,  rape,  and  loot  have  raged 
in  the  communities  of  Warsaw,  Radom,  Petrikow,  Kelts. 

Only  a  few  Russian  governors  like  Korff  in  Warsaw, 
Kelepovski  in  Lublin,  or  the  governors  in  Wilna,  Petri- 
kow, and  Grodno  have,  rather  late,  it  is  true,  tried  to 
protest  against  pogroms;  but  neither  the  Government 
nor  the  Poles  take  their  admonishings  to  heart. 

Eye  witnesses  have  told  me  of  Jewish  soldiers  in 
various  hospitals  who  have  grown  insane  not  from'  the 
unavoidable  horrors  of  war,  but  from  seeing  pogroms  in 
cities  through  which  they  marched.  In  their  delirium 
they  confuse  the  victims  with  their  own  dear  ones  whom 


112  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

they  imagine  violated  or  murdered.  Their  delirium 
always  centres  around  the  same  subject. 

The  Russian  Poles'  anti-Semitic  campaign  is  all 
the  more  odious  since  40,000  Jewish  soldiers,  among 
them  many  volunteers,  serve  in  the  Russian  army  and  as 
the  Jews'  contributions  to  the  army  and  the  Red  Cross 
are  boundless.  In  larger  communities  special  hospitals 
for  Russian  soldiers,  without  regard  to  creed,  have  been 
founded  by  Jews  with  Jewish  money.  'Not  a  few  Jew- 
ish soldiers  have  received  the  highest  decorations. 
Some  have  even  been  awarded  by  Commander-in-Chief 
Rennenkampf,  who  is  an  active  anti-Semite.  Russian 
authorities  on  the  whole  are  anti-Semite.  The  proc- 
lamation from  the  Tzar  to  my  ''  dear  Jewish  subjects," 
which  has  been  printed  in  the  French  papers,  has  never 
been  anything  but  a  parody. 

While  the  standing  accusation  against  the  Jews  in 
Russian  Poland  has  been  that  of  s;)Tiipathising  with  the 
Russians  —  which  they  would,  it  seems,  have  no  spe- 
cial reason  to  do  —  A.  Warinski  recently  reversed  the 
accusation  in  Politihhen,  '^  Germany's  attempts  to  con- 
ciliate the  Poles  influenced  only  the  Jews  who  are 
psychologically  related  to  the  Prussians  and  inclined  to 
side  with  them."  This  would  seem  the  climax.  The 
Jew  is  and  must  be  a  Judas.  If  this  is  not  proved  in 
one  way,  it  is  proved  in  another.  ;N"ot  with  one  word 
does  M.  Warinski  mention  the  number  of  Jews  who 
have  voluntarily   enlisted  because  of  enthusiasm   for 


cOxNrDiTio:NS  m  eussian  Poland    113 

Poland.  These  Jews  could  not  believe  —  as  I,  for  one, 
refuse  to  do  —  that  this  outburst  of  nationalism  in  Rus- 
sian Poland  is  anything  but  a  passing  epidemic. 

In  the  long  run  how  could  the  Russian  Poles  be  un- 
faithful to  the  only  powers  they  can  count  on  —  call 
on !  How  could  they,  who  are  fighting  for  liberty,  after 
years  of  oppression  turn  and  oppress  the  only  race  that 
(for  its  misfortune)  is  in  their  power!  The  only  race 
that  has  suffered  a  dozen  times  more  than  they !  And 
the  only  one  that  is  so  strong  it  cannot  he  crushed  hy 
oppression.  How  can  the  Poles,  themselves  ruined  by 
the  treachery  of  the  confederation  of  Targowica,  accuse 
as  traitors  the  one  race  which  never  has  been  untrue  to 
itself,  and  which,  even  in  its  deepest  misery,  has  never 
betrayed  the  Slavs  who,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  gave  ref- 
uge to  its  children? 

Probably,  in  reply  to  my  appeal  to  the  Poles,  it  will 
be  explained  it  is  because  of  my  race  that  I  now  make 
this  appeal.  Personally  my  descent  has  influenced  me 
so  little  that  I  have  been  frequently  attacked  in  national 
Jewish  papers  and  magazines  as  a  renegade  of  racial 
ties  and  faith. 

Even  last  spring  during  my  stay  in  America  I  was 
perpetually  attacked  in  the  Jewish- American  papers  as 
the  "  callous  renegade  of  the  Jews."  That  was  all 
nonsense,  as  are  most  printed  assertions,  but  at  least 
it  shows  that  it  is  not  because  of  my  hlood,  but  because 
of  my  opinions,  that  I  now  raise  my  voice.     My  sympa- 


114    '  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

thy  is  not  for  the  Jews  as  Jews,  but  for  the  oppressed 
and  suffering. 

It  was  I  who  wrote  a  generation  ago :  ^'  One  loves 
Poland,  not  as  one  loves  France,  or  Germany,  or  Eng- 
land, but^as  oneloves  liberty.  For  what  does  it  mean 
to  love  Poland,  but  to  love  liberty,  to  sympathise  with 
suffering,  and  to  admire  courage  and  glowing  enthusi- 
asm! Poland  is  a  symbol  of  everything  loved  by  the 
best  in  humanity  and  of  the  ideals  for  which  humanity 
lives  and  has  fought." 

Those  were  my  words,  and  I  have  stood  by  them  until 
now. 

Must  I  be  ashamed  of  having  written  them,  now  that 
Poland^s  future  is  hanging  in  the  balance  ? 


CONDITIONS  m  RUSSIAN  POLAND 

Incitement  to  Pogeoms 
(February,  1915) 

Since  the  stirring  of  national  hatred  has  succeeded 
in  turning  Europe  into, a  madhouse,  a  house  of  mourn- 
ing, a  hospital,  a  cemetery,  and  a  bankrupt  estate,  one 
would  at  least  think  that  some  sort  of  an  internal  peace 
would  reign  within  the  boundaries  of  the  different  coun- 
tries participating  in  the  war. 

This  does  not,  as  I  have  explained  in  a  few  other  arti- 
cles, apply  to  the  Russian  Empire,  although  France  and 
England  are  obliged  to  inform  the  world  that  Russia 
is  also  fighting  for  liberty  and  justice.  Yet  since  the 
war  Russia  has  suppressed  the  workingmen's  press,  dis- 
solved the  labor  societies,  imprisoned  five  members  of 
the  country's  Duma,  sent  Finland's  most  prominent 
statesmen  to  Siberia,  led  the  Poles  on  by  vague  promises 
—  which  were  not  even  made  by  the  Tzar  himself  but 
by  a  commander  whose  words  bound  no  one  —  and  or- 
ganised a  persecution  of  the  Russian  Jews  which  is 
worse  than  any  former  one.  The  number  of  Jews 
fighting  in  the  Russian  army  is  calculated  to  be  between 
a  quarter  of  a  million  and  400,000,  yet  the  Govern- 
ment is  careful  not  to  accord  the  Jews  a  single  right. 

116 


116,  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

iN'either  does  it  allow  them  to  escape  from  the  territory 
where  they  have  heen  told  to  reside ;  that  is,  in  Poland 
and  the  Lithuanian  provinces.  When  boundless  misery 
^d  hunger  oblige  the  Jews  to  abandon  their  homes, 
they  are  driven  back  by  Cossack  patrols  or  soldiers. 
Jewish  soldiers  more  or  less  convalescent  are  sent  from 
the  hospitals  to  their  "  homes "  which  are  in  ruins. 
It  even  happened  that  a  nineteen-year-old  volunteer 
from  Charkov,  whose  face  was  half  torn  away  and  who 
was  to  have  been  operated  on  by  Dr.  Hirschmann,  was 
put  out  of  the  hotel  before  the  operation  took  place 
and  had  to  leave  the  city  because  he  was  a  Jew  or  of 
Jewish  origin.  And  while  the  war  lasts  no  one  whose 
father  or  gTandfather  was  a  Jew  is  allowed  to  enter  the 
military  school  for  officers. 

In  Poland  a  series  of  pogroms  have  taken  place  since 
the  beginning  of  the  war.  The  Jewish  population  has 
been  looted,  abominably  treated,  and  in  many  places 
murdered.  Furthermore,  the  inhabitants  have  been 
evicted  from  territory  they  were  previously  allowed  to 
live  in ;  they  have  been  driven  out  on  twenty-four  hours* 
notice.  About  1500  families  were  thrown  out  into  the 
streets  in  Grodzisk,  a  city  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Warsaw  I  know  very  well,  while  everything  that  was 
left  in  the  houses  was  stolen  and  destroyed.  The  Jews 
have  been  expelled  in  this  way  from  eight  cities,  fleeing 
to  the  capital  where  they  were  not  allowed  to  remain. 

If  the  rabble  in  Russian  Poland,  as  elsewhere  in  Eu- 


CO]^DITIONS  m  RUSSIAN  POLA]N'D     llT 

rope-,  -were  filled  with  a  violent  hatred  for  the  Jews, 
this  would  not  lead  an  author  (who  doubtlessly  more 
than  any  other  foreigner  has  shown  his  devotion  to  the 
Polish  people)  to  accuse  the  Poles.,  If  the  pogroms 
sprang  from  the  masses  there  would  be  nothing  to  say 
against  them.  Conditions  would  then  be  the  same  in 
Poland  as  in  Kishinef  and  other  places  in  Pussia. 

But  that  which  has  impelled  me  to  protest  is  the 
immense  difference  between  Eussia  and  Russian  Poland. 
While  in  Russia  all  the  greatest  writers  and  men:  a 
Vladimir  Korolenho,  a  Leonid  AndrejeVj  a  Maxime 
Gorhi  —  all  the  intellectuals,  in  short,  take  up  the  cause 
of  the  Jeivs  and  looTc  upon  the  excitation  to  pogroms  as  a 
crime  and  a  shame,  Polish  intellectuals,  men  like  Nemo- 
jeivski  aiid  Schwientochowski,  have  stepped  into  the 
breach  as  leaders  of  the  movement  against  the  Jeivs. 
They  have  thereby  proved  how  far  Poland  is  behind 
Russia  in  real  culture.  Poland's  leading  men  act  as  if 
it  were  the  duty  of  the  intellec^^ial  elite  to  drag  down 
instead  of  to  uplift. 


POLAND 

(November,  1915) 

Countess  Julie  Ledochowska,  who  is  to  speak  at  the 
Concert  Palace  about  the  sad  fate  of  her  country  during 
the  world  war,  is  a  woman  who  has  devoted  every  day 
of  her  life  to  her  country  and  her  people.  As  so  many 
of  Poland's  wonderful  women,  she  is  Polish  to  the  mar- 
row, and  the  more  passionately  so  as  her  people  still  re- 
main politically  weak.  She  belongs  to  a  celebrated 
Polish  family.  Her  uncle  was  the  famous  Cardinal 
Ledochowski,  who  as  the  archbishop  in  Posen-Gnesen 
refused  to  submit  to  Bismarck's  May  laws.  He  had 
been  made  archbishop  in  1866  in  the  hope  that  in  return 
he  would  quell  the  national  agitation  in  Posen,  but 
Bismarck's  fight  against  the  Catholic  Church  brought 
him  in  the  first  ranks  of  the  opposing  party  and  he  had 
to  spend  the  years  1874-76  in  prison.  In  1875,  Pius 
IX,  who  was  very  fond  of  him,  made  him  cardinal. 

The  Countess  is  not  entirely  Polish.  On  her  mother's 
side  she  is  a  descendant  of  the  noble  old  Swiss  family 
of  Salis  in  Graubünden  which  has  several  branches  — 
one  of  them  during  the  Revolution  gave  a  highly  re- 
spected officer  to  the  French  Kings'  Swiss  Guard.  But 
the  power  of  entirely  absorbing  half-foreign  elements, 

118 


POLAND  119 

which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  Polish  people  as  it  is  of 
the  Hungarian  and  the  American,  is  shown  in  the  case 
of  Countess  Ledochowska  who  feels  entirely  Polish  and 
nothing  else.  Her  family  has  to  this  day  a  highly 
esteemed  name  in  the  Catholic  world.  Her  brother  is 
the  Jesuit  commander. 

As  far  as  one  can  judge,  it  seems  that  the  Countess 
will  dwell  particularly  on  the  sufferings,  misery,  and 
anguish  which  the  war  has  brought  upon  Austrian  and 
Russian  Poland  where  the  battles  of  the  Eastern  front 
have  taken  place.  She  hopes  to  move  her  audiences  to 
help  in  some  concrete  way  to  relieve  the  misery  which 
now  for  more  than  sixteen  months  has  ravaged  the  popu- 
lation.    ' 

She  has  not  led  the  idle  life  of  a  society  woman. 
First  in  Galicia  and  then  in  Russia,  and  after  her  ex- 
pulsion from  Russia  in  Finland,  and  after  her  expul- 
sion from  Finland  in  Sweden,  she  has  entirely  given  up 
her  life  to  the  education  of  young  Polish  girls.  She  is 
filled  with  the  only  valuable  idealism,  the  practical  one, 
and  looks  upon  conditions  in  Poland  not  from  a  polit- 
ical point  of  view  but  from  a  human  one. 

As  I  have  said,  it  is  from  a  fundamentally  human 
standpoint  that  Countess  Ledochowska  looks  upon  con- 
ditions in  her  fatherland  —  in  other  words,  she,  who  is 
good  herself,  speaks  to  others  in  a  language  of  kindness. 

Therein  lies  —  strange  as  it  may  seem  —  something 
unusual  for  our  day. 


120  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

He  who  remarks  how,  on  the  sixteenth  month  of  the 
war,  the  conflicting  peoples,  each  and  all,  are  convinced 
they  are  fighting  for  justice  and  truth  against  falsehood 
and  oppression,  while  they  all  simultaneously  massacre 
each  other  by  means  of  most  frightful  inventions,  can- 
not help  feeling  that  man  by  nature  is  a  vastly  more 
sophisticated  devil  than  the  one  whom  Goethe  char- 
acterised in  Faust  by  the  celebrated  lines: 

"  Ein  Theil  von  Jener  Kraft 
Die  Stets  das  Böse  will  und  stets  das  Gute  Schaft." 

Man,  or  at  least  the  spirit  of  the  nations,  is  quite  dif- 
ferent and  much  more  terrible.  He  and  they  are  part 
of  that  force  which 

"Stets  das  Qute  will  und  stets  das  Böse  schafft/* 

For  all  belligerent  statesmen,  strategists,  officers,  and 
soldiers,  as  well  as  generals  and  admirals,  colonels  and 
naval  commanders,  all,  without  exception,  day  in  and 
day  out,  only  ask  to  do  the  right  —  but  their  good  in- 
tentions are  expressed  day  in  and  day  out  by  an  uninter- 
rupted series  of  horrors,  atrocities,  and  slaughter  in 
proportions  the  world  never  dreamed  of.  The  fight  for 
the  good  has  had  the  certain  result  of  causing  the  most 
awful  evil  which  one  would  think  inspired  only  by  the 
wildest  lust  of  bloodshed  and  destruction. 

As  conditions  in  Poland  have  a  political  as  well  as  a 
human  side,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  a  few  polit- 


POLAND  121 

ical  remarks  to  the  Countess's  essentially  human  view- 
point. 

As  will  be  remembered,  the  present  campaign  was  be- 
gun by  a  manifesto  made  by  the  Russian  Comanander-in- 
Chief  Grandduke  Nicholas  Nicholaijevitch  to  the  Poles 
in  Russian  Poland.  It  promised  the  fulfilment  of  their 
national  dreams  in  the  form  of  a  not  very  clearly  de- 
fined autonomy.  How  much  this  implied,  what  its  limi- 
tations would  be,  was  not  stated.  That  the  Russian 
Government  did  not  take  this  manifesto  seriously  was 
shown  when  the  Russians  took  Lemberg  and  classed  the 
territory  as  "  old  Russian  land.'' 

Temporarily,  however,  the  manifesto  served  to  sepa- 
rate the  Poles.  In  Galicia,  Polish  legions  were  immedi- 
ately formed  and  for  months  they  fought  bravely  in  the 
Austrian  army. 

In  the  Russian  ^'  Kingdom  "  of  Poland,  on  the  other 
hand,  one  party  believed  in  the  liberation  of  Polish  ter- 
ritory and  its  reconstruction  through  Russian  victories 
—  or  if  it  did  not  believe  the  manifesto  it  at  least  pre- 
tended to  do  so  in  order  to  take  Russia  at  her  word. 
This  party  did  not  feel  Polish  as  much  as  Slav.  An- 
other party,  if  given  a  choice,  preferred  Russian  autoc- 
racy to  Prussian,  for  while  Russian  authority  is  more 
cruel  it  is  not  so  thorough.  It  may  be  more  barbarous, 
but  it  is  less  systematic.  It  contains  loopholes  through 
which  one  may  breathe  because  its  outline  is  less  defined. 
And  one  advantage  is  that  pressure  can  always  b^  re- 


122  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

moved  in  Russia  by  adequate  bribing,  while  the  methodi- 
cal Prussian  bureaucrat  is  an  incorruptible,  fundament- 
ally honourable,  governmental  automaton  without 
human  weaknesses  and  without  human  virtues. 

The  war  has  levelled  the  differences  between  the 
Poles,  who  counted  on  Russia,  and  those  who  hoped  for 
eventual  reunion  by  means  of  Austria  and  Austro-Ger- 
man  victories. 

But  enough  differences  remain ;  the  Poles  are  obliged 
to  fight  against  one  another  in  the  armies  of  the  different 
powers ;  but  since  the  Russian  armies  have  been  driven 
out  of  Galicia  and  the  '^  Kingdom  "  of  Poland  has  been 
conquered,  the  question  of  a  Russian  ''  orientation  "  as 
it  is  called,  has  been  silenced.  The  Central  Empires 
and  the  Poles  who  favour  the  Central  Powers  have  the 
floor. 

And  they  take  advantage  of  it.  Germany  alone  pub- 
lishes a  large  Polish  weekly,  Poland,  while  the  smaller 
review,  Pohiische  Blätter,  appears  three  times  a  month; 
and  there  is  a  deluge  of  polemical  ^T-itings  and  a  swarm 
of  pamphlets. 

One  would  think  that  from  all  these  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  obtain  some  light  as  to  political  plans  and  events. 

But  this  is  very  difficult.  Most  of  what  is  published 
bears  the  official  stamp.  The  few  paragraphs  purport- 
ing to  be  unofficial  are  published  under  a  wakeful  censor- 
ship and  are  inspired  by  the  authorities.  At  the  pres- 
ent  moment    Europe   has    joyfully    accepted   Russian 


POLAl^D  123 

standards  in  regard  to  freedom  of  speech.  Intellectual 
life  is  not  allowed  free  expression.  The  teacher  cannot 
even  rely  on  ^^  historical  "  facts.  There  is  lying,  gloss- 
ing over,  erasing,  omitting,  inventing,  and  double  deal- 
ing to  please  one  political  faction  or  another. 

As  Galicia  is  the  only  part  of  Poland  where  the  in- 
habitants were  allowed  human  rights,  it  was  natural  to 
look  upon  Galicia  as  the  kernel  of  Poland  reborn.  The 
Poles  of  the  "  Kingdom  "  and  Prussian  Poland  were  to 
be  united  with  it  and  all  were  to  acquire  the  same  polit- 
ical independence  and  autonomy.  The  possibility  of 
uniting  Galicia  and  the  ''  Kingdom  "  under  an  Austrian 
archduke  as  Polish  regent  was  discussed  in  tete-a-tetes 
—  the  regent's  name  was  even  mentioned.  But  this 
project  was  soon  abandoned.  Por  Prussia,  unless  it 
changed  its  character  completely,  would  never  allow  a 
free  Polish  state  in  its  neighbourhood. 

In  August  the  German  Chancellor  made  a  speech  in 
which  he  published  a  programme,  as  it  were,  of  the 
future  policies  of  the  German  Empire.  Two  points  de- 
serve special  attention.  The  first,  that  Germany  "  is 
the  defender  and  protector  of  the  rights  of  small  na- 
tions," and  secondly,  that  the  German  conquest  of  Po- 
land meant  the  ''  beginning  of  a  movement  which  would 
do  away  with  the  differences  between  Germans  and 
Poles,  and  lead  Poland,  freed  from  the  Russian  yoke, 
into  a  happy  future  where  it  could  cultivate  and  give 
full  expression  to  its  national  life." 


124  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

The  words  were  chosen  with  care  and  revealed  the 
Chancellor's  intention  not  to  commit  himself.  Yet  the 
speech  was  surprising,  and  if  a  personality  backed  the 
words,  and  if  they  w^ere  spoken  in  earnest,  they  implied 
nothing  short  of  a  revolution  in  German  and  especially 
Prussian  politics. 

If  Germany  intended  to  allow  the  Poles,  liberated 
from  Russian  authority,  to  develop  their  national  char- 
acteristics freely,  it  could  not  refuse  the  Poles  in 
Posen,  Schleswig,  West  and  East  Prussia,  the  same 
rights. 

The  Chancellor  should  merely  have  supplemented  his 
speech  by  an  explanation  as  to  how  such  a  changed 
course  could  be  taken,  since  it  would  be  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  customs  and  traditions  of  the  German  Em- 
pire. Besides,  while  the  '^  Kingdom  "  is  quite  Polish 
and  Galicia  is  evenly  divided  among  Poles  and  Ruthe- 
nians,  one-third  of  the  inhabitants  of  Posen  are  Ger- 
man, and  in  Prussia  no  less  than  four  million  Poles  are 
mixed  with  eight  million  Germans.  It  would  be  very- 
hard  to  single  out  the  Poles,  and  if,  when  Poland  were 
reconstructed,  they  were  not  singled  out,  it  would  be 
very  hard  to  rule,  let  alone  satisfy,  them. 

For  the  moment  Poland's  conquerors  are  silent  as  to 
the  future  destined  for  the  country.  They  are  busy  re- 
constructing it  materially.  There  is  nothing  to  hint 
that  they  intend  to  grant  the  people's  wish  and  unite 
Poland,  but  much  seems  to  prove  Austria's  and  Prussia's 


POLAI^D  125 

desire  to  concede  Polish  language  every  right  which  it 
hitherto  has  been  denied  in  universities,  schools,  and  on 
the  stage.  The  authorities  have  also  asked  for  Polish 
co-operation  on  several  public  questions. 

Until  the  terms  of  peace  are  definitely  settled  it  is 
difficult  to  pass  resolutions  or  make  promises  for  the 
future.  And  before  political  reforms  are  to  be  thought 
of,  there  is  more  than  enough  to  do  economically  and  ma- 
terially. 

The  traditions  of  1812  which  obsessed  Russia  to  such 
an  extent  that  she  in  all  seriousness  looked  upon  the 
Russian  retreat  from  Galicia  and  the  "  Kingdom  "  as 
strategetical  moves  comparable  to  those  of  a  hundred 
years  ago  —  those  traditions  are  responsible  for  Rus- 
sia's almost  insane  destruction  of  every  city  and  terri- 
tory abandoned  by  her  armies.  The  Russians  drove  out 
the  entire  population.  Polish  Catholics  and  Jews  were 
forced  into  the  interior  of  Russia  or  sent  by  train 
all  the  way  to  Siberia  in  the  most  barbarous  way.  For 
three  to  four  days  at  a  stretch  the  unfortunate  people 
were  locked  in  and  penned  together  in  baggage  and  live- 
stock cars,  without  being  permitted  to  leave  them  even 
to  seek  food.  Every  day  many  died  from  this  treat- 
ment. The  dead  were  thrown  out  of  the  cars  and  were 
heaped  along  the  tracks,  or  the  bodies  remained  in  the 
cars  which  stopped  at  the  stations  while  no  one  was 
allowed  to  go  out.  Assuredly  the  Jewish  population 
which  has  been  persecuted  and  abused  on  the  strength  of 


126  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

a  two-thousand-year-old  hatred  was  particularly  sub- 
jected to  this  brutality.  Yet  Catholic  Poles  have  also 
suffered  inhumanly,  and  they  deseTve  all  the  sympathy 
which  misery  excites. 

Never  have  the  inhabitants  of  Polish  territory  had 
such  an  untold  siun  of  suffering  heaped  upon  them  as 
now  when  the  possibility  of  Poland's  reunion  shines  be- 
fore their  eyes  as  not  too  far  distant  nor  too  uncertain. 
In  1866  I  wrote:  '^  Although  the  Pole  is  hopeful  by 
temperament  the  utter  impossibility  —  at  least  accord- 
ing to  mortal  eyes  —  of  finding  a  way  out  of  his  des- 
perate plight  preys  on  his  mind  like  a  nightmare. 
There  w^ould  seem  to  be  no  solution  of  his  difficulties  ex- 
cept that  which  might  arise  in  the  problematical  event  of 
a  great  war  between  Russia  on  one  side  and  Austria- 
Germany  on  the  other." 

What  I,  almost  fifty  years  ago,  wrote  vaguely,  appre- 
hensively, has  now  taken  place. 

So  far,  as  I  said  above,  this  fight  for  the  good  cause, 
however,  has  had  the  certain  result  of  an  uninterrupted 
series  of  disasters  and  an  endless  chain  of  horrors. 


POLAND 

Lecture  delivered  March  13,  1916 

The  nations  outside  the  war-storm,  which  rages  over 
the  earth  and  its  gardens,  watch  with  bated  breath  the 
spreading  of  ruin  and  destruction. 

Every  day  brings  fresh  horrors,  which  please  the 
victors  and  which  cripple  or  destroy  the  defeated. 

That  is  all  we  know  for  certain  about  this  war  in 
which  a  truth-killing  censorship  and  the  violent  articles 
of  fanatic  journalists  keep  the  public  absolutely  ig- 
norant of  what  is  really  happening.  There  is  blood- 
shed at  the  front  —  hatred  in  the  press. 

How  much  longer  can  it  last  ?     How  long  can  general 
^mass   murder   and   systematic   destruction   ravage  the 
earth? 

We  see  sorrow,  suffering,  and  mourning  wind  Europe 
in  a  black  shroud. 

We  see  poverty,  hunger,  and  despair  rise  and  spread 
over  Europe  like  ghosts  dancing  in  a  circle  as  the 
witches  on  the  heath  in  Macbeth, 

What  is  Europe?  Transformed  into  hundreds  of 
battlefields,  thousands  of  cemeteries  and  hospitals,  one 
enormous  bankrupt  estate,  and  one  inimonse  insane  asy- 
lum. ..      * 

127 


128  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

The  actors  as  well  as  the  spectators  of  the  huge 
tragedy  have  been  taught  from  childhood  that  a  super- 
natural and  wise  destiny  directs  the  world.  And  they 
believe  that  everything,  even  that  which  seems  most 
desperate  in  our  eyes,  is  for  the  best.  They  ask  in  deep 
anxiety:     What  good  is  to  come  out  of  this? 

Theologists  and  philosophers  have  ready  answers. 

They  say  a  new  era  will  come  over  the  world,  courage 
and  virtue  will  take  the  place  of  luxury.  From  the 
thunder  of  canons,  the  clash  of  firearms,  from  bursting 
grenades  and  exploding  mines,  from  machines  that 
spread  burning  liquids  or  poisonous  gas  over  what  was 
previously  called  fellow  men,  now  the  enemy,  they 
claim,  will  come  what  is  called  justice. 

Most  people  believe  this  because  philosophers  as  well 
as  ministers  and  poets  have  impressed  it  on  them.  And 
young  people  wishing  to  appear  thoroughly  up  to  date 
are  convinced  they  are  "  modern  "  when  they  profess 
optimism. 

Few  are  they  who  know  that  humanity  is  worth  more 
than  nationality.  Few  who  know  that  where  hatred  is 
sown  nothing  but  hatred  can  be  reaped. 

Few  they  are  who  feel,  as  it  says  in  a  little  Swedish 
verse  I  have  read: 

"  I  saw  innocence  crushed  under  foot, 
I  heard  might  admired, 
Truth  despised, 
Then  my  blood  boiled. 


POLAND  129 

Now  I  have  quite  ceased  to  be  surprised, 

When  everything  flouts  simple,  common  sense, 

I  know  right  is  crushed  under  foot 

In  spite  of  prayers  and  tears, 

I  know  life's  law  is  hard  and  not  good." 

And  yet  —  if  in  the  midst  of  this  temporary  reign  of 
horror  one  sees  a  gleam  of  light, —  uncertain  and  flicker- 
ing though  it  may  be, —  this  is  when  poor  Poland's 
future  is  considered.  Most  assuredly  not  its  present. 
For  rarely,  perhaps  nowhere  on  earth,  has  misery,  "  all 
mankind's  misery,"  of  which  Faust  speaks,  been  united 
as  in  Russian  Poland  and  Galicia. 

In  the  first  place  these  countries  have  been  ravaged 
by  the  impersonal  element  called  war  —  by  three  great 
powers,  three  million  soldiers  fighting  each  other,  bil- 
lowing back  and  forth,  leaving  behind  corpses,  epidem- 
ics, men  crippled  and  mutilated  —  three  real  great 
powers :     Hunger,  Sickness,  and  Sorrow. 

Added  to  this  has  been  the  personal  element  called 
cruelty.  It  has  helped  to  drown  in  misery  three  popula- 
tions: the  Polish,  the  Jewish,  and  the  Ukrainian,  and 
unfortunately  it  has  also  led  the  majority  of  the  inhabi- 
tants to  persecute  the  minority,  so  that  hatred  and  bru- 
tality triumph  here  as  everywhere  else. 

War  —  cultural  power,  it  is  claimed  to  be !  —  has 
made  everything  poorer  and  more  sordid  —  everything 
is  brutalised,  militarised,  clericalised,  nationalised,  over 
all  the  earth. 


130  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

And  yet  for  the  first  time  in  a  hundred  years  the 
outlines  of  the  Poland,  which  long  was  a  dream  picture, 
seem  at  last  to  become  real.  We  see  the  shimmer  of  an 
independent  Poland,  to  be  sure  not  as  extensive  as 
Poland  in  the  days  of  its  greatness,  but  still  a  Poland 
where  the  Russian  "  Kingdom  "  and  Galicia,  at  least 
West  Galicia,  are  to  be  united  and  given  as  much  inde- 
pendence as  small  states  are  allowed  to  have. 

Probably  few  among  us  are  old  enough  to  remember 
the  enthusiasm  which  fired  the  Danes  at  the  time  of  the 
Polish  Rebellion  in  Russian  Poland  in  1863.  IN'ot  only 
the  young  but  the  old,  not  only  women  but  men,  throbbed 
with  hope  when  the  ship  hired  by  the  Poles  landed  at 
Copenhagen,  and  the  flock  of  young  warriors,  who  hoped 
to  reach  Poland  from  our  country,  spent  a  few  weeks 
with  us  equipping  and  arming  themselves. 

I  seem  to  see  them  at  the  ^'  Students  Association  " — 
young,  brave,  inspired  —  I  see  the  most  admired  and  the 
most  dashing,  Stephan  Poles,  who  in  spite  of  his  cour- 
age and  his  leadership  did  not  prove  worthy  of  the  task. 
To  see  and  talk  to  these  men  was  like  kindling  the  torch 
of  liberty  for  the  youth  of  that  generation. 

And  some  of  us,  a  generation  later,  proved  our  devo- 
tion to  Poland  and  the  Poles. 

During  a  visit  to  Warsaw  in  1886  I  visited  the  painter 
Koloszinski.  He  showed  me  his  collection  of  old  Polish 
gold  and  silver  brocaded  scarves,  and  I,  while  examining 
and  toying  with  one  of  them,  suddenly  seemed  to  see  the 


POLAISTD  131 

sumptuous-  civilisation  of  aristocratic  Poland  of  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  glow  with  life  be- 
fore my  eyes. 

I  seemed  to  see  the  higher  brotherhood,  the  Szchlata, 
of  voivodes,  hetmans,  castellans,  bishops  —  all  these 
magnates  in  their  sukmds  and  hontuszs  of  velvet  and 
silk, with  the  vivid  red  breeches  and  the  wide  waist 
bands  —  and  I  felt  how  all  this  splendour  symbolised 
the  proud  and  passionately  independent  nation's  aris- 
tocratic love  of  life  and  beauty.  He  who  had  such  a 
gold-brocaded  scarf  wound  many  times  around  the 
body  carried  with  him  a  continuous  impression  of 
beauty,  of  luxurious  well  being.  And  the  rare  beauty 
of  these  embroideries  corresponded  to  the  aristocracy's 
boundless  hospitality,  its  tendency  for  lavishness  in 
eating  and  drinking,  its  ethics  of  princes. 

I  seemed  to  see  the  graceful  elegance  of  its  women,  its 
Catholic  culture  filled  with  joy  of  living,  like  cham- 
pagne punch,  seasoned  with  a  dash  of  holy  water.  And 
as  the  women  were  taught  to  love  high  ideals  and  grace, 
so  the  men  were  trained  to  heroic  courage.  From  child- 
hood they  were  filled  with  a  love  of  liberty  and  worship 
of  the  rights  of  the  individual  even  to  the  politically  in- 
sane extremity  of  the  liberum  veto.  One  dissenting  vote 
was  enough  to  prevent  any  common  decision. 

Polish  civilisation,  which,  in  Copernicus,  gave  the 
world  its  fundamental  law,  and  under  Sobieski  defeated 
the  Turks  and  saved  Vienna  and  Europe,  shone  even  in 


132  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

the  days  of  its  decadence,  under  August  the  Strong  of 
Saxony,  who  reminds  one  of  the  drunken  and  dissolute 
Hercules  of  a  Greek  satire.  It  culminated  in  modern 
days  in  Chopin,  whose  music  i§  both  Polish  and  Euro- 
pean. 

Beautiful  and  rich  was  the  Polish  garb  in  peace. 
But  even  in  war  old  Poland  was  a  feast  of  splendour. 
In  battle  Polish  knights  had  great  wings  on  their  coats 
of  mail.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  panache  was 
ever  present. 

In  Cherbulliez's  Ladislas  Bolski,  which  is  supposed  to 
render  a  typical  Pole's  lightness  and  weakness,  the 
dazzling  attraction  of  splendour  is  expressed  in  the  son's 
love  for  the  father's  red  and  white  plume  which  he  al- 
ways carries  about  with  him. 

It  is  typical  that  one  of  Poland's  greatest  poets,  Julius 
Slowacki,  in  his  poem  Beniowski  gives  this  conception 
of  God :  "  He  is  not  a  God  of  worms  or  of  creatures 
that  crawl.  He  loves  the  flight  of  gigantic  birds  and  the 
mad  gallop  of  storming  horses.  He  is  the  dashing 
feather  on  proud  helmets." 

No  one  except  a  Pole  would  define  the  Deity  so. 

When  Polish  decadence  and  the  politics  of  Catherine 
II  led  to  the  first  division  of  Poland,  in  1T72,  the 
feather  on  the  helmet  sank  midst  the  clash  of  arms. 

The  brilliant  decadent  and  aristocratic  republic  of 
thirteen  millions  had  only  30,000  quite  independent 
magnates   in   a  Szlachta  of  scarcely  a  million.     The 


POLAND  133 

lower  aristocrats  were  entirely  dependent  on  them,  and 
to  an  even  greater  extent  the  peasants.  In  Poland,  as 
in  Iceland  and  France  under  the  old  regime,  the  lords 
exerted  their  influence  over  a  popiilation  of  miserable 
tax-ridden  serfs  or  slaves. 

After  the  first  division  the  Poles  bethought  them- 
selves. The  best  instincts  rose  within  them.  They  had 
been  obliged  to  give  up  a  population  of  five  millions. 
But  Poland  was  not  yet  lost.  In  1789,  the. same  year  aa 
the  French  Eevolution,  they  decided  to  change  their 
constitution.  The  elective  monarchy  with  the  remark- 
able and  unfortunate  liberum  veto  disappeared  and  gave 
way  to  a  hereditary  monarchy,  to  religious  liberty,  to 
the  right  of  free  citizens  to  vote,  to  the  power  of  the 
majority,  the  independence  of  the  judiciary,  and  a  rela- 
tive protection  of  the  peasant  class  against  the  arbi- 
trary power  of  the  lords.  The  constitution  of  May  3, 
1791,  shows  Poland's  earnest  desire  to  create  a  modern 
state. 

Poland's  star  was  rising  again. 

Great  English  statesmen,  opponents  like  Burke  and 
Fox,  called  this  constitution  a  work  in  which  the  friends 
of  liberty  in  all  countries  must  rejoice. 

Then  Catherine  II  interfered,  in  1793  Russia  would 
not  sanction  a  free  and  powerful  Poland.  Frederick 
William  II  of  Prussia,  who  had  first  agreed  to  recognise 
the  constitution,  went  back  on  his  word  and  allied  him- 
self with  Russia  to  divide  Poland.     Traitors  among 


134  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

Poles  of  the  higher  aristocracy  like  Felix  Potocki"  and 
Xavier  Branicki  formed  the  confederation  of  Targo- 
wica,  in  order  to  preserve  the  liberum  veto,  and  handed 
their  country  over  to  the  partitioning  powers. 

Then  Kosciuszko  made  his  brave  revolution,  was 
tragically  defeated,  and  Poland  was  divided  for  the 
third  time  in  1796. 

During  Xapoleon's  campaign  in  1806  and  1812  the 
Poles  again  began  to  hope.  Their  first  advances  were 
ill  rewarded  by  Bonaparte.  Although  Polish  legions 
during  the  Italian  campaign  in  1797  fought  side  by  side 
with  the  soldiers  of  the  French  republic,  and  Dombrow- 
ski  saved  the  French  many  a  hard  blow.  Napoleon  was 
not  kind  to  his  Polish  allies.  Yet  they  formed  new 
legions,  and  under  the  Consulate  took  part  in  tlie  battles 
of  the  Danube  and  in  Italy.  Here  it  was  that  Wibicki's 
famous  Polish  national  anthem  was  created  for  Dom- 
browski's  soldiers,  the  Jescze  Polska:  "  Poland  is  not 
yet  crushed.  Marchef  Mar  die!  Domhrowshi!  " — No 
one  was  as  faithful  to  Napoleon  as  the  Poles.  At  the 
last  extremity,  in  the  most  desperate  attacks  or  when- 
ever the  Emperor's  o\vn  salvation  was  at  stake,  the 
Polish  lancers  were  called. 

On  Napoleon's  lonely  sleigh-ride  during  the  retreat 
from  Eussia  he  was  accompanied  from  Smorgoni  in 
—  35°  Fahrenheit  by  a  hundred  Polish  lancers,  who,  the 
night  before,  had  volunteered  to  act  as  guard.  Only  36 
of  them  were  left  the  next  morning.     When  Moreau  in 


POLAND  135 

1814  made  the  mistake  of  surrendering  the  fort  of  Sois- 
sons,  the  700  Poles  of  the  garrison  had  resisted  a  besieg- 
ing army  of  50,000  men  and  would  have  held  the  fort 
until  Napoleon's  arrival  if  Moreau  had  not  lost  his  judg- 
ment and  allowed  himself  to  be  trapped. 

More  recently  in  the  nineteenth  century  Europe  has 
been  reminded  of  Poland  by  the  revolts  of  1830  and 
1863.  Traces  of  the  sympathy  created  in  all  European 
countries  by  the  revolution  of  1830  may  still  be  found 
—  mostly  in  France,  of  course,  for  Polish  emigrants  of 
that  day  fled  to  France  as  to  their  home,  and  Poland's 
greatest  poet,  Adam  Mickiewicz,  was  appointed  to  the 
College  de  France  and  lectured  there  for  the  cause  of  his 
fatherland. 

The  revolution  of  1830  found  echo  in  Germany  too. 
I  need  only  to  refer  to  Börne's  Paris  Letters,  to  Her- 
wegh's  poems  For  Poland  and  Poland  to  Europe,  to 
the  four  beautiful  poems  by  Moritz  Hartmann,  and  to 
the  whole  collection  of  August  von  Platens'  Polenlieder: 

"Die  Lüfte  welin  so  schaurig, 
Wir  ziehn  dahin  so  traurig 
Nach  ungewissem  Ziel. 
Kaum  leuchten  uns  die  Sterne 
Europa  sieht  vom  Ferne 
Das  grosse  Trauerspiel/' 

In  Norway,  Welhaven  wrote  his  unforgettable  poem : 
"  At  the  Barriere  of  La  Cite,  Lies  a  Humble  Little 
Cafe."     The  silent  Pole  rises  midst  the  noisy  students 


136  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

who  drink  to  Poland  and  bares  his  chest.  "  You  fools, 
those  are  the  scars  of  Ostrolenka.  .  .  .  Do  you  realise 
how  they  bum  ?  " 

In  Denmark,  Hauch  by  his  thousand  times  sung: 
Why  does  the  Vistula  River  Swell?  shows  how  deep  is 
the  sympathy  for  Poland  as  Astrup  by  a  Polish 
Mother.  When  the  father  is  to  be  shot  she  holds  her 
child  high  in  the  air,  that  the  dying  man  may  see  him: 

"  Cast  your  eyes  upon  him,  and 
With  the  force  and  the  strenglh 
Which  death  aloue  can  give 
Consecrate  him  to  vengeance !  " 

The  revolt  of  1863,  which  I  began  by  discussing,  gave 
birth  to  much  beautiful  Northern  poetry. 

Carl  Snoilsky's  half  dozen  poems,  among  which  the 
most  striking  doubtlessly  is  On  Poland's  Orave,  de- 
scribes Poland  as  '^  the  empty  spot  in  tlie  lap  of  Europe.'^ 

"  Though  the  world  were  a  garden  of  roses 
And  honey  flowed  from  wonderful  goblets, 
A  monument  of  shame  would  seem 
That  empty  spot  in  the  lap  of  Europe." 

jNTo  one  can  say  what  will  be  the  outcome  of  the  war 
which  crackles  all  over  the  earth.  But  no  matter  how 
it  ends,  it  would  seem  as  if  Poland  in  one  way  or  another 
will  be  reconstructed. 

For  the  moment,  however,  Poland  is  still  an  empty 
spot  in  Europe's  lap. 


POLAND  137 

During  the  war,  the  press  of  the  helliger ent  countries 
has  succeeded  in  exciting  1  >  an  unknown  degree  the  most 
horrible  of  nil  powers,  national  hatred  —  hatred  which 
is  not  founded  on  a  person's  faults  or  crimes,  but  on  his 
race  or  birthplace  —  idiotic  race  hatred  and  national 
hatred.  This  hatred  is  the  political  factor  which  pre- 
vents peace. 

But  behind  the  nations  and  over  the  nations  stands 
humanity  and  humanness. 

And  behind  national  hatred  and  above  the  national 
hatred  the  love  of  humanity  still  exerts  itself. 

It  is  human  love  that  strives  to  diminish  the  suffer- 
ings which  national  hatred  has  caused,  and  to  heal  the 
wounds  it  has  caused. 


THE  COXQUEST  OF  BASRA 

(November,  1914) 

The  importance  of  the  recent  English  victory  at  Basra 
has  been  said  to  reside  chiefly  in  the  moral  effect  it  will 
have  on  the  Eastern  peoples. 

But  it  would  seem  of  much  greater  importance,  from 
a  practical  point  of  view,  provided  the  conquest  could  be 
maintained  after  the  war. 

■}«■  *  * 

As  Germany  could  not  secure  profitable  colonies  in 
East  and  West  Africa  she  began  to  seek  an  outlet  to- 
ward the  East,  and  was  so  successful  in  Asia  Minor 
that  England  began  to  feel  acutely  menaced. 

In  the  eighties  Bismarck  declared  the  Oriental  ques- 
tion —  referring  to  Turkey  and  its  fate  —  was  of  no 
interest  to  Germany  and  not  worth  the  bones  of  "  a  sin- 
gle Pomeranian  grenadier."  But  for  more  than  a  dozen 
years  Germany's  influence  has  been  decisive  at  the  Bos- 
phorus,  while  France,  during  her  necessary  but  badly 
conducted  campaign  against  the  Church,  neglected  the 
Christian  protectorates  in  Turkey  and  Syria  which  she 
had  maintained  for  centuries.  During  this  time  the 
Kaiser  made  a  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem   (1897)   and 

138 


THE  C0:N'QUEST  of  BASRA  139 

while  officially  appearing  as  the  defender  of  the  Chris- 
tian communities  in  Asia  Minor  sealed  a  solemn  alli- 
ance with  the  Sultan  whose  hands  were  still  dripping 
with  the  blood  of  300,000  Christian  Armenians. 

The  alliance  between  the  Half  Moon  and  the  Cross 
did  not  seem  to  benefit  Turkey  to  any  great  extent.  It 
did  not  prevent  the  Italians  from  taking  Tripolis,  nor 
the  Balkan  States  from  defeating  the  Turkish  army. 
Yet  the  German  alliance  survived  the  fiasco.  It  had 
long  ago  given  Germany  the  concession  of  the  Bagdad 
Railway,  which  has  been  a  turning  point  in  modern 
German  history. 


The  story  of  the  Bagdad  road  is  an  example  of  the 
way  in  which  the  fate  of  nations  depends  on  a  few 
men  —  diplomats  and  ministers  —  who,  in  reality,  are 
but  the  mouthpieces  of  the  large  banking  and  industrial 
concerns.  The  masses  have  not  the  slightest  voice  in 
directing  the  policy  of  their  country,  in  making  war 
or  peace,  and  this  is  as  true  of  a  parliamentary  country 
like  England,  a  democratic  country  like  France,  as  of 
Germany,  Russia,  or  Turkey. 

In  olden  days  when  nations  lived  by  agriculture  they 
went  to  war  to  gain  territory,  to  wrest  land  away  from 
their  neighbours.  !N"ow  that  the  nations  have  become 
industrial  states  and  are  in  reality  ruled  by  financial 
oligarchies  even  if  they  nominally  appear  to  have  em- 


140  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

perors,  kings,  or  presidents,  the  purpose  of  war  is  no 
longer  to  conquer  land  or  peoples  but  markets.  Each 
nation  wants  a  wider  outlet  for  its  products,  greater  in- 
vestment for  its  capital.  The  real  character  of  war  to- 
day is  not  a  fight  for  ideals  but  a  fight  for  concessions. 

Japan  made  war  on  China  in  1895  in  order  to  domi- 
nate Korea ;  the  United  States  fought  Spain  in  1898  to 
gain  access  to  the  riches  of  Cuba ;  England  attacked  the 
Boers  in  1899  because  of  the  Transvaal  mines;  the 
Powers  stormed  China  in  1900  in  order  to  force  rail- 
ways upon  her;  Japan  declared  war  on  Russia  in  1904 
to  gain  certain  advantages  in  Manchuria.  The  conquest 
of  territory  was  an  incident ;  what  the  victor  sought  was 
railroads,  loans,  tariffs. 

Xow  during  the  nineteenth  century  England  con- 
trolled the  industry  of  Europe  by  means  of  her  coal  and 
iron  as  well  as  by  her  spirit  of  enterprise  and  her  un- 
rivalled sea  power.  France  alone  was  a  feeble  competi- 
tor and  after  the  Eashoda  incidents  she  dropped  out  of 
the  race.  But  then  a  new  rival  suddenly  appeared: 
Germany,  which  until  1870  had  been  an  agricultural 
nation.  She  began  to  abound  in  foundries,  mills,  chem- 
ical works,  and  shipyards ;  she  acquired  new  railroads, 
new  canals,  and  even  a  budding  navy. 

At  first  Germany's  industrial  attempts  caused  no  un- 
easiness in  England.  But  as  the  years  passed  and  the 
Germans  progressed,  England  discovered  that  many  an 
article  supposed  to  be  of  home  manufacture  was  Ger- 


THE  CONQUEST  OF  BASRA  141 

man  in  reality.  And  as  German  consuls  and  German 
salesmen  were  active  in  every  part  of  the  world,  England 
and  Germany  soon  began  to  conflict  everywhere,  in 
Brazil  as  well  as  in  Asia  Minor. 

The  first  move  in  this  international  game  of  chess  was 
Joseph  Chamberlain's  attempt  to  strengthen  the  bond  be- 
tw^een  England  and  the  colonies  by  abandoning  free 
trade  and  introducing  a  protective  tariff  for  the  mother 
country  and  the  colonies.  But  the  idea  stranded  on  the 
opposition  of  the  English  working  classes. 

Then  Edward  VII  planned  to  encircle  Germany  by 
a  network  of  allied  powers.  He  came  to  France  in  the 
second  year  of  his  reign  as  soon  as  the  Boer  situation 
was  cleared. 


About  this  time —  1902  —  the  German  Government, 
having  obtained  the  concession  of  the  Bagdad  Eailway 
from  the  Sultan,  tried  to  bring  about  a  financial  under- 
standing with  France. 

The  Bagdad  railway  was  to  unite  the  suburbs  of 
Constantinople  with  a  German  port  on  the  Persian 
Gulf  and  as  first  planned  it  was  to  have  followed  the 
old  Roman  road,  creeping  around  the  Taurus  Mountains 
and  linking  together  the  flowering  cities  in  the  plain  of 
Nineveh.  This  line  would  have  been  the  shortest  and 
the  cheapest.  But  Russia  protested,  since  it  would 
favour  the  rapid  transportation  of  Turkish  troops  and  in 


142  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

case  of  war  would  threaten  Eussia's  Armenian  and 
trans-Caucasian  provinces.  The  German  company 
therefore  had  to  follow  a  southern  route,  that  taken  by 
Xenophon's  Ten  Thousand,  which  afterwards  branched 
off  across  the  Taurus  into  the  plains  of  Mesopotamia. 

The  German-Anatolian  Eailway  Company  also  se- 
cured concessions  to  the  side  roads  already  in  operation. 
The  two  most  important  belonged  to  French  companies. 
These  were  bought.  One  of  these  controls  the  direct 
line  to  Smyrna;  the  other  leads  to  Adana  and  the  port 
of  Alexandrette.  Finally  the  German  company  ob- 
tained the  rights  to  the  long  important  line  which  was  to 
connect  Aleppo,  Damascus,  and  Mecca,  and  which  would 
be  used  by  all  pilgrims  going  to  the  Prophets'  City. 

By  means  of  all  these  railroads  Palestine  would  be- 
come a  sort  of  German  province.  A  network  of  tracks 
would  have  gleamed  between  Mecca  and  Constantinople, 
and  would  have  united  Smyrna  with  the  Persian  Gulf. 
One  of  the  terminals  would  have  been  twelve  hours  from 
Egypt,  the  other  only  four  days  from  Bombay.  The 
road  would  have  brought  Bagdad  five  hours  from  Con- 
stantinople instead  of  fifty-five  days,  and  made  it  pos- 
sible to  transport  Turkish  troops  easily  from  the  centre 
to  the  most  distant  parts  of  the  country.  There  would 
be  rich  harvests  of  corn  and  cotton  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tigris  and  Euphrates ;  a  new  way  would  be  opened  up 
to  India,  and  the  value  of  the  Suez  Canal  would  be 
incalculably  decreased.     Turkey  would  become  an  eco- 


THE  CO:^QUEST  OF  BASKA  143 

nomic  vassal  of  Germany  and  England's  domination 
in  India  would  be  severely  menaced. 


As  Germany  did  not  have  the  requisite  capital,  she 
turned  to  France  and  a  Franco-German  company  was 
formed.  The  president  was  Arthur  von  Gwinner,  presi- 
dent of  the  Deutsche  Bank  and  the  vice-president  was 
a  M.  Vernes,  an  associate  of  the  Rothschilds  in  the  Com- 
pagnie  du  Nord  et  du  Midi.  On  the  board  of  trustees 
he  also  represented  various  banks  and  interests;  the 
Union  ParisennCj  the  Banque  Ottomane,  the  Salonicor 
Constantinople  Railways,  etc.  Back  of  him  were  finan- 
cial authorities  like  Eouvier. 

As  soon  as  this  financial  understanding  had  been 
reached  between  France  and  Germany,  a  diplomatic 
rapprochement  was  inevitable.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  in  France,  as  in  all  other  countries,  the  financial  and 
industrial  interests  are  centred  in  the  hands  of  a  very- 
few  men  who  practically  control  the  nation.  As  a 
Frenchman  writing  under  the  pseudonym  Lysis  proved 
in  a  remarkable  series  of  articles  published  in  1906-7  in 
La  Revue,  France  is  practically  governed  by  three  or 
four  afiiliated  banks  and  establishments  of  credit  who 
control  the  wealth  of  the  nation  and  invest  it  without  giv- 
ing any  real  account  of  their  operation  and  without 
taking  into  consideration  the  interest  of  the  nation  or 
any  but  their  own.     Ministers  of  finance  never  attempt 


144  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

to  interfere  because  tlie  few  men  who  control  the  banks 
aleo  control  the  Government.  They  have  made  the 
good-will  of  the  politicians  worth  while  and  have  won 
the  press  over  to  their  side.  And  when  these  men  had 
determined  to  co-operate  with  the  German  bankers,  the 
two  nations  had  to  become  friends  again.  The  first 
steps  were  taken.  Jules  Lemaitre,  who  at  that  time  had 
not  become  a  nationalist,  proposed  that  by-gones  be  by- 
gones and  advocated  friendship  w4th  Germany. 

At  this  England  began  to  show  signs  of  nervousness. 
For  a  long  time  she  had  been  competing  industrially 
with  Germany  and  had  not  emerged  undisputably  vic- 
torious. She  maintained  her  supremacy  because  of  her 
wealth  and  capital  —  not  on  the  industrial  terrain.  If 
Germany  were  to  secure  the  backing  of  French  capital, 
she  would  become  a  very  serious  rival. 

The  consequence  of  the  Franco-German  understand- 
ing was  King  Edward's  visit  to  Paris  in  1903  —  as 
stated  above. 

As  an  onlooker  in  the  crowd  I  witnessed  his  reception 
and  was  struck  by  the  rather  uncertain  attitude  of  the 
masses.  The  tension  between  France  and  England  was 
still  strong  after  the  Fashoda  incidents.  During  the 
Boer  War,  which  had  just  ended,  sentiment  in  Paris 
had  been  entirely  for  Kruger. 

But  now  King  Edward  appeared  as  the  old  friend 
and  admirer  of  France;  as  a  man  he  had  the  Parisian 
associations  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  back  of  him;  as  a 


THE  CONQUEST  OE  BASKA  145 

diplomat  lie  knew  what  lie  wanted  and  was  bent  on  mak- 
ing use  of  every  opportunity  to  insure  England's  supre- 
macy in  her  competition  with  Germany.  He  realised 
it  would  not  be  very  difficult  to  stir  up  the  old  Erench 
grudge  against  Germany,  the  hatred  from  1870-71. 

During  his  stay  in  Erance  King  Edward  met  Del- 
casse,  who  for  about  eight  years  had  directed  the  foreign 
policy  of  his  country  and  who  was  delighted  at  the 
thought  of  co-operating  to  encircle  Germany.  In  1901 
he  had  been  to  Eussia  to  strengthen  the  Russian  alliance 
and  he  was  persona  grata  at  St.  Petersburg;  he  tried  to 
dissolve  Italy's  connection  with  the  Triple  Alliance  and 
he  was  active  in  Constantinople;  he  was  on  hand  wher- 
ever he  thought  he  could  further  the  interests  of  Erance 
by  means  of  an  isolated  Germany. 

King  Edward's  stay  in  Paris  was  well  spent.  The 
day  after  he  left  for  London  it  was  announced  that  M. 
Vernes  and  his  associates  withdrew  from  the  Bagdad 
company  and  that  the  Eranco-German  company  was  dis- 
solved. 

*  *  * 

It  seems  as  if  the  conquest  of  Basra  is  England's 
first  step  to  thwart  Germany's  plans  in  Asia  Minor. 
The  outcome  of  the  war  alone  will  decide  whether  the 
Bagdad  Railway  is  to  be  completed  by  Germany  or  the 
other  Powers. 


146  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

The  Bagdad  Railway  —  incidentally  —  is  one  of  the 
many  threads  which,  hound  together,  have  forged  the 
cable  which  brought  on  the  war, —  this  war  for  busi- 
ness, for  enriching  bank  directors  and  kings  of  industry. 
It  rages  madly  while  Europe's  unhappy  and  peace-lov- 
ing peoples,  artificially  stirred  by  national  hatred, 
believe  they  are  fighting  for  ideals  of  liberty  and  justice. 

The  war  for  trade  is  costumed  as  a  defense  of  the 
fatherland  —  of  that  fatherland  which  statesmen  in 
every  instance  could  have  guarded,  strengthened,  en- 
riched, and  developed  to  the  highest  degree  of  civilisa- 
tion without  the  use  of  a  sina-lo  ^u^-pedo,  mine  or 
grenade 


THE  GKEAT  ERA 
(May,  1915) 

How  often  we  hear  that  we  are  living  through  epoch- 
making  days !  That  the  war  marks  the  greatest  events 
in  the  history  of  humanity,  since  never  before  have 
human  lives  and  material  values  been  counted  on  such  a 
scale.  All  this  may  be  true,  but,  personally,  I  do  not 
see  facts  in  this  light.  I  look  upon  great  inventions 
that  benefit  humanity  —  steamships,  locomotives,  teleg- 
raphy, electricity,  aeroplanes,  etc. —  as  factors  which 
create  epoch-making  days.  But  I  cannot  conceive  con- 
tinuous wholesale  murder,  egged  on  by  the  vilest  and 
most  rabid  stirring  of  national  hatred,  as  creating  a 
great  era,  if  by  great  one  implies  valuable.  Of  course 
it  may  be  claimed  that  the  magnitude  of  the  ideals 
fought  for,  not  the  magnitude  of  the  damage  done, 
makes  the  present  war  great. 

There  have  been  other  wars  inspired  by  lofty  motives, 
such  as  the  war  of  Xapoleon  III  on  Austria  to  free  the 
Italian  provinces  from  foreign  domination.  But  as  a 
general  thing,  wars  are  not  waged  for  ideals  but  for 
profit.  Economic  competition  is  always  tense  between 
nations,  and  the  object  of  an  open  break  between  them  is 
to  gain  undisputed  power,  supremacy. 

147 


148  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

All  of  the  belligerents  are  convinced  that  right  is  on 
their  side,  and  the  leaders  of  public  opinion  impress 
this  on  the  masses  in  their  respective  countries.  The 
people  in  every  country,  therefore,  believe  they  are  fight- 
ing for  right  and  never  doubt  that  Heaven  owes  them 
victory.  They  all  frowai  on  neutrals,  whom  they  de- 
spise for  being  unable  to  see  right  on  one  side  only. 
They  who  are  fighting  for  their  lives  are  not  receptive  to 
arguments,  and  it  is  futile  to  answer  their  attacks. 

Among  the  nations  suffering  from  the  war,  three  have 
been  very  sorely  tried :  Belgium,  Poland,  Armenia. 

Belgium's  fate  outraged  the  w^orld,  both  in  Europe 
and  America.  It  went  against  all  sense  of  justice, 
was  in  direct  opposition  to  all  right.  That  neutrality 
guaranteed  by  the  Powers  should  be  completely  disre- 
garded and  that  the  maintaining  of  this  neutrality  ac- 
cording to  international  honour  should  be  the  cause  of 
all  the  horrors  from  which  civilised  peoples  thought 
they  had  evolved,  shocked  the  conscience  of  the  world. 

Yet  it  was  not  for  the  sake  of  Belgium  alone  that  Eng- 
land went  to  war.  August  2,  Sir  Edward  Grey  prom- 
ised M.  Cambon  that  if  the  German  fleet  entered  the 
Channel  or  began  to  operate  against  the  coast  of  France 
the  British  navy  would  come  to  the  assistance  of  France. 
This  was  an  inimical  act  to  Germany  before  Belgian 
soil  had  been  violated  by  German  troops. 

The  sudden  tragedy  which  befell  the  Belgians  melted 
into  one  all  the  various  elements  which  had  hitherto 


THE  GREAT  ERA  149 

conflicted.  The  French-speaking  Walloons  and  the 
Flemish,  whose  language  does  not  differ  materially  from 
the  Dutch  or  the  Low  German,  have  forgotten  their  dis- 
sensions and  become  one  people.  Before  the  war  the 
Walloons  felt  mentally  and  linguistically  related  to 
France,  while  the  Flemish  had  a  penchant  for  Germany. 
Whether  the  Germans  will  be  able  to  retain  possession 
of  Belgium  after  the  war  is  a  matter  of  conjecture;  but 
it  is  certain  that  whatever  influence  Germany  may  have 
had  in  Belgium  before  the  war  has  now  been  completely 
uprooted.  The  Belgians  are  a  stubborn  race,  uncon- 
querable by  force,  as  the  Spaniards  learned  in  their  day. 
And  while  Belgium  may  be  physically  under  the  Ger- 
man regime,  she  has  never  been  so  intellectually  free 
from  German  influence  as  to-day.  Belgium's  two  great- 
est poets,  Maeterlinck  and  Verhaeren,  who  had  the  keen- 
est sympathy  for  Germany  before  the  war  and  who  had 
been  honoured  in  Berlin  and  Vienna,  have  turned 
against  Germany  with  the  greatest  violence,  and  their 
example  is  typical  of  the  feeling  of  the  whole  country. 
From  the  very  first  the  Allies  gave  the  war  a  pro- 
gramme. They  were  fighting  for  right.  The  pro- 
gramme was  rounded  out  in  such  a  way  as  to  crush 
Germany's  domination  and  her  thirst  for  power,  and 
every  possession  recently  acquired  by  Germany  was  to 
be  taken  away  and  restored  to  the  original  owner. 
France  was  to  get  Alsace-Lorraine;  Denmark,  I^orth 
Schleswig;  the  unfortunate,  thrice-divided  Poland  was 


150  THE  WORLD  AT  WAK 

to  be  Tinited  and  self -governed  under  Russian  authority. 
This  last  promise  was  made  in  a  proclamation  by  the 
Russian  General-in-Chief,  but  has  never  been  confirmed 
by  the  Government  or  the  Tzar. 

What  has  happened,  however,  is  that  Poland  has 
suffered  more  since  the  beginning  of  this  war  than 
Galicia  had  suffered  since  1846  and  Russian  Poland 
since  1863.  And  the  country  had  had  its  share  of 
misery  before  the  war.  But  since  the  war,  Poland  has 
become  one  immense  battle-field  where  Austria  and  Ger- 
many are  fighting  the  Russian  masses.  Eastern 
Galicia,  which  enjoyed  a  measure  of  independence  under 
Austria,  is  now  under  the  knout.  The  Ruthenians, 
(who  while  oppressed  in  Russia  had  been  free  in  Aus- 
trian Galicia)  are  deprived  of  the  right  of  sj>eaking  their 
own  language  by  their  Russian  ''  saviours."  They  num- 
ber thirty-six  millions  and  are  not  considered  a  nation. 

In  Russian  Poland,  the  "  Kingdom,"  stands  a  German 
army.  While  fleeing  before  the  devastating,  invading 
army,  husbands  and  wives,  brothers  and  sisters,  mothers 
and  children,  have  lost  each  other  and  have  never  found 
each  other  again. 

Although  they  are  of  the  same  nation  and  race,  Rus- 
sian Poles  are  obliged  to  fight  against  the  Austrian  and 
German  Poles,  for  they  are  disguised  as  each  other's 
enemies. 

And  in  this  unhappy  country  there  are,  besides  the 


THE  GKEAT  ERA  151 

Poles,  between  five  and  six  millions  of  tlie  world's  most 
oppressed  race,  the  Jews.  Abused  by  all  sides,  forming 
an  immense  proletariat  which  Russian  barbarism  has 
herded  into  a  narrow  territory  where  they  have  no  means 
of  sustenance,  they  have  since  the  beginning  of  the  war 
been  the  choice  butt  of  religious  and  race  hatred  com- 
bined. They  have  no  human  rights.  And  whatever 
evil  and  suffering  is  let  loose  upon  them,  is  made  to  ap- 
pear well  deserved  because  of  a  two-thousand-year-old 
sin.  Since  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  the  Jewish  race 
has  never  suffered  as  to-day. 

Meanwhile  Armenians  are  being  exterminated  by  the 
most  frightful  deportations  to  the  desert,  by  massacres 
without  end.  More  than  800,000  of  this  Christian 
people  have  been  killed  on  Turkish  soil. 

The  great  days  we  are  living  through  are,  therefore, 
days  where  old  prejudices,  race  hatred,  and  national 
hatred  have  been  stirred  to  life  and  become  omnipotent. 
Everything  bestial  in  human  nature  spreads  and 
stretches  itself.  Murder  all  night  and  all  day,  unceas- 
ing, is  weakening  European  and  Asiatic  nations  — 
their  youth  is  sacrificed  on  the  battle-field,  and  the 
people  at  home  perish  from  sorrow,  want,  and  starva- 
tion. 

And  this  is  the  result  of  humanity's  gospel  for  nine- 
teen hundred  years :     Love  your  neighbour  as  yourself ! 

It  is  inevitable,  that  the  very  young  who  have  never 


152  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

seen  war  before  and  who  have  been  taught  that  some- 
thing good  comes  out  of  everything,  even  from  the 
worst,  have  faith  in  the  coming  peace. 

As  for  me,  I  am  convinced  that  future  generations 
will  look  upon  the  great  days  we  are  living  in  as  we  look 
upon  the  days  of  witchcraft  and  the  Inquisition. 


NEUTRALITY 

An  Opei^  Letter  to  Georges  Clemenceau 

(February  28,  1915) 

Dear  Friend: 

Your  remark  about  the  Danes,  that  they  are  a  nation 
without  pride,  has  made  bad  blood  in  this  country  and 
has  wounded  me  personally.  A  writer  of  your  rank 
should  refrain  from  derogatory  expressions  about  a 
whole  nation,  especially  since  such  generalisations  never 
hit  the  truth,  no  more  than  one  strikes  a  butterfly  with  a 
club.  You  doubtless  remember  Eenan's  words  on  the 
subject. 

You  attack  Denmark's  neutrality  in  the  bitterest  and 
most  offensive  terms.  You  ascribe  it  —  since  the  coun- 
try cannot  have  forgotten  the  mutilation  Germany  sub- 
mitted it  to  —  to  fear  and  cupidity.  I,  who,  if  I  may 
say  so,  cannot  well  be  suspected  of  any  desire  to  enrich 
myself  by  it,  would  consider  Denmark's  participa- 
tion in  the  war  as  madness.  Through  your  paper, 
which  I  read,  I  know  you  feel  that  Denmark  ought  to 
declare  war  on  Germany.  As  long  as  there  is  a  grain 
of  sense  left  in  a  Danish  Government,  this  will  not 

happen. 

163 


154  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

No  Dane  who  lived  through.  1864  could  ever  forget 
that  Denmark  then  lost  two-fifths  of  its  territory;  nor 
that  Prussia  and  Austria  stripped  us  not  only  of  the 
territory  which,  from  a  national  if  not  from  a  political 
point  of  view,  they  may  have  had  some  right  to,  but  in 
Xorth  Schleswig  annexed  territory  absolutely  Danish  in 
language,  character,  culture,  and  feeling.  We  have  not 
forgotten,  either,  that  the  promise  of  1866,  by  which  the 
Danes  of  North  Schleswig  were  to  be  given  the  oppor- 
tunity of  becoming  Danish  again,  was  never  kept.  And 
we  have  (with  deeper  interest  and  a  more  quickened 
feeling  than  the  French)  witnessed  the  German  regime's 
increasing  and  incessant  persecution  of  Danish  language 
and  spirit  in  North  Schleswig. 

Nevertheless,  some  of  us  still  retain  a  fragment  of 
political  insight,  and  they  would  regard  a  Danish  declar- 
ation of  war  on  Germany  as  sheer  madness.  The  war  of 
1864  was  not  declared  by  Denmark;  it  was  accepted 
because  of  Denmark's  naive  and  misplaced  confidence  in 
an  English  promise  to  the  effect  that  Denmark  in  case 
of  war  would  not  stand  alone. 

If  proof  of  modem  statesmen's  political  negligence 
and  lack  of  foresight  is  desired,  the  attitude  of  France 
and  England  during  the  war  of  1864  is  a  fertile  study. 
France,  then  dominated  by  Napoleon  III,  believed  she 
was  pursuing  a  wise  policy  in  supporting  Prussia,  hop- 
ing naively  that  Bismarck  might  sometime  do  her  a 
good  turn  therefor;  and  England,  without  the  slightest 


J^EUTEALITY  155 

protest,  allowed  Prussia  to  acquire  the  port  of  Kiel.  If 
to-day  Denmark  has  neither  a  fleet  capable  of  offensive 
action  nor  a  boundary  which  can  be  defended,  this  is 
due  to  England's  and  France's  attitude  in  1864.  If 
attacked,  Denmark  would  of  course  be  obliged  to  defend 
herself  as  best  she  can.  But  she  is  quite  unable  to  take 
the  offensive. 

The  few  Danes  who  have  tried  to  enrich  themselves 
during  the  war  without  regard  to  the  country's  weal  or 
its  repute  abroad  have  been  punished  officially  by  the 
law  and  unofficially  by  public  opinion.  They  do  not  de- 
serve the  slightest  notice,  and  the  Danish  people  should 
not  be  blamed  for  their  unscrupulousness. 

Dear  Friend !  Your  articles  against  Denmark  have, 
it  seems  to  me,  sometimes  had  a  personal  sting.  Once 
you  said  it  was  characteristic  that  I  had  not  spoken  of 
the  war  in  a  private  letter  to  you.  You  spoke  of  this 
publicly,  designated  me  clearly  even  though  you  did  not 
mention  my  name.  I  received  numerous  letters  from 
France.  If  I  wrote  you  briefly  it  was  simply  in  order 
to  save  your  time  and  mine.  In  your  article :  "  Re- 
flections on  Neutrals,"  there  is  also  a  passage  which 
many  think  refers  to  me.  It  speaks  of  one  of  the  "  most 
celebrated  thinkers "  in  that  Scandinavian  country 
which  has  suffered  most  from  German  brutality.  A 
Russian  journalist  repeated  to  you  certain  remarks 
which  the  thinker  in  question  is  supposed  to  have  made 
about  Germany,  Belgium,  and  Denmark,  and  you  take 


156  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

the  thinker  to  task  for  these  second-hand,  verbal  re- 
marks. 

Would  that  you  could  read  Danish  and  not  always  be 
obliged  to  rely  on  second-hand  judgments!  Besieged 
as  I  have  been  since  the  beginning  of  the  war  by  foreign 
and  also  Russian  journalists,  I  have  had  but  one  thought, 
and  that  was  to  keep  away  from  them.  Even  as  influ- 
ential a  writer  as  Novo  je  Vremjas  correspondent  has 
knocked  at  my  door  in  vain.  I  have  never  said  a  word 
of  what  the  Danish  thinker  in  your  article  is  supposed  to 
have  said,  and  I  feel  sure  that  no  other  thinker,  answer- 
ing to  the  description,  would  ever  have  expressed  him- 
self as  affirmed  by  you. 

The  warm  friendship  which  has  bound  us  for  many 
years,  and  which,  from  my  side,  has  never  been  broken, 
makes  me  wish  to  answer  you  briefly  and  clearly,  as  one 
would  answer  a  friend  and  a  man  who  hates  futilities 
and  circumlocutions.  I  know  your  love  of  truth  and 
your  highmindedness.  If  you  have  expressed  yourself 
inconsiderately  about  Denmark  it  is  simply  because  you 
do  not  know  our  language  and  are  not  familiar  with  our 
conditions. 

In  old  friendship, 

G.  B. 


NEUTRALITY  157 

Reply  to  Geoeges  Clemenceau 
(March,  1915) 

When  the  war  broke  out  Denmark  declared  herself 
neutral,  and  a  proclamation  from  the  King,  calling  upon 
the  population  to  refrain  from  any  demonstration  which 
would  increase  the  difficulties  of  the  Danish  Government, 
was  posted  on  the  street  comers.  If  this  request  was 
addressed  to  the  average  citizen  and  the  nameless  Danes 
in  Europe  and  America,  it  had  special  reference  to  the 
few  who  are  generally  known  and  who  in  the  eyes  of  the 
foreigner  are  looked  upon  as  representing  the  people. 
Not  for  an  instant  did  I  doubt  that,  I,  personally,  must 
obey  the  command. 

Added  to  this  was  a  factor  which  I  referred  to  in  a 
private  letter  to  you,  but  without  such  details  as  one 
would  give  when  writing  for  publication.  You  did  not 
quite  grasp  the  sense  of  it.  Allow  me  here  to  re- 
mark incidentally  that  according  to  my  lights  and  also 
according  to  English  customs,  it  is  not  good  form  to  lay 
before  the  public  any  part  of  private  letters  written  in 
entire  confidence  and  trust.  I  do  not  owe  the  public  an 
explanation  for  the  reasons  I  gave  for  my  reserved  posi- 
tion. 

You  seem  to  imply  that  it  was  of  importance  to  me  to 
have  my  brother  retain  his  ministerial  portfolio.  Per- 
sonally I  have  not  the  slightest  interest  in  whether  my 
brother  remains  cabinet  minister  or  not.     He  has  been 


158  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

minister  before,  and  he  maj  become  one  again  later. 
What  had  importance  in  my  eves,  however,  was  not  to 
create  difficulties  for  the  Danish  Government  (i.e.,  for 
the  moment  Denmark),  The  most  trifling  act  could  do 
so,  and  create  confusion  abroad.  And  this  might  hap- 
pen verv  easily  as  my  brother  and  I  have  the  same  name. 
It  might  be  thought  that  I  was  speaking  for  my  brother, 
or  that  he  shared  my  views. 

When  you  say  that  a  minister's  portfolio  in  Denmark 
is  of  little  consequence  compared  with  Louvain,  Dinant, 
Reims,  I  most  heartily  agree  with  you,  and  your  sug- 
gestion would  have  struck  home  if  by  protesting  I  could 
have  prevented  the  destruction  of  these  cities  or  a  re- 
newal of  the  bombardments.  Of  course  the  German 
actions  were  outrageous ;  but  if  I  were  to  protest  against 
every  injustice  that  I  witness  I  should  never  do  any- 
thing else.  That  I  am  no  timorous  or  prudent  person, 
afraid  of  raising  my  voice  when  I  believe  my  words  can 
be  of  assistance  or  prevent  injustice  or  cruelty,  I  have 
proved  a  hundred  times  over ;  and  if  you  knew  my  writ- 
ings as  I  know  yours,  you  would  not  accuse  me  of  the 
one  thing  which  does  not  apply  to  me.  A  single  ex- 
ample :  As  a  friend  of  humanity,  you  protested  against 
the  massacres  of  the  Armenians  by  the  Turks  and  the 
Kurds.  You  protested  in  print  and  in  France.  I, 
however,  protested  as  a  speaker  in  1913  in  Berlin  and  in 
German,  when  the  German  Government  was  the  ally 
and  defender  of  Turkey. 


I^EUTEALITY  159 

Regarding  Denmark  and  Schleswig,  I  have  expressed 
mv  opinions  so  frequently  (they  may  he  found  in  my 
collected  works),  that  I  cannot  very  well  be  accused  of 
tr\dng  to  get  away  from  what  I  have  said. 

Jü^either  have  I  ever  retracted  a  single  word  of  what  I 
may  have  said  to  you  at  our  annual  meetings  in 
Karlsbad,  as  you  seem  to  infer.  Allow  me,  however, 
to  remark  that  we  last  met  there  in  1909.  At  that  time 
the  European  situation,  such  as  it  is  to-day,  could 
scarcely  be  imagined,  let  alone  discussed. 

My  open  letter  to  you  dwelt  on  one  point  only.  You 
had  called  the  Danes  "  a  nation  without  pride  " —  an  in- 
sulting word  which  you  now  try  to  gloss  over  but  which 
was  the  cause  of  my  protest.  Imagine  any  one  calling 
the  French  such  a  thing !  Your  articles  contained  a  few 
other  disparaging  remarks  about  the  Danes.  It  was  im- 
possible for  me  to  consider  a  phrase  such  as :  Us  se  ter- 
rent  dans  leur  trou  (they  hide  in  their  holes),  except 
as  a  hint  that  Denmark  ought  to  declare  war.  You 
made  it  seem  as  if  the  Danes  lacked  moral  courage  in 
not  declaring  war  on  Germany.  And  you  repeatedly 
dwelt  on  the  pitiable  figure  the  Danes  would  cut  at  the 
peace  negotiations  when  they  would  ask  the  Allies  for 
the  restitution  of  the  Duchies  (Holstein,  Schleswig, 
Lauenburg). 

This  remark  alone  shows  that  you  have  no  idea  of 
Danish  conditions.  'Ro  Danish  person  with  any  polit- 
ical insight  entertains  such  a  wish  or  would  make  such  a 


160  THE  WOELD  AT  WAK 

demand.  Denmark  does  not  wish  to  acquire  a  popula- 
tion which  would  be  annexed  under  protest  only,  and 
which  would  become  Danish  only  by  force  since  its  ma- 
jority is  German  speaking  and  German  spirited.  What 
the  Danes  have  demanded  since  186-i  is  the  restitution 
of  the  Danish-speaking  and  Danish-thinking  population 
of  Schleswig.  But  we  would  gain  nothing  by  the  resti- 
tution of  even  this  province  if  we  were  to  obtain  it  by 
humiliating  Germany.  For  the  simple  reason  that  Ger- 
many would  then  seize  the  first  and  best  occasion  to 
avenge  herself  and  deprive  us  of  it.  This  Denmark 
could  not  prevent.  The  possession  of  Danish  Schleswig 
can  be  secured  only  by  peaceful  negotiations  with  Ger- 
many. 

It  must  also  be  admitted  that  one  must  possess  an  ob- 
ject before  being  able  to  dispose  of  it.  So  far  Germany 
rules  in  Xorth  Schleswig  —  not  the  Allies.  Imagina- 
tion runs  riot  in  belligerent  countries.  French  and  Ger- 
man papers  refer  to  what  they  intend  to  do  quite  as  if 
they  had  already  obtained  that  which  they  hope  for. 
The  belligerents  are  all  optimists.  But  the  spectator 
may  look  upon  the  struggle  in  a  more  doubtful  light, 
especially  as  events  seem  to  confirm  his  pessimism.  I, 
for  my  part,  am  not  sanguine.  I  do  not  for  a  moment 
imagine  that  this  is  to  be  the  last  war  or  even  a  de- 
cisive one. 

Your  letter  ends  —  in  a  not  quite  friendly  way  —  by 
putting  me  through  a  cross  examination.     I  am  not  fond 


NEUTRALITY  161 

of  inquisitions,  even  when  clothed  in  civil  forms,  and  I 
scarcely  ever  reply  to  the  questions  which  European 
papers  often  address  to  me. 

The  purpose  of  your  cross  examination  seems  to  be  to 
reveal  my  underhandedness  to  the  French  people,  and 
your  questions  remind  me  of  the  saying  that  a  wise  man 
can  ask  more  questions  than  seven  ordinary  mortals  can 
answer. 

There  are  very  few  problems  in  the  world  which  can 
be  answered  by  an  absolute  "  yes  "  or  "  no,"  unless  one 
is  allowed  to  state  the  questions  oneself;  for  the  way 
the  problem  is  set,  determines  the  answer. 

I  have  expressed  my  sympathy  for  France  so  many 
thousand  times,  both  in  words  and  in  writing,  that  not 
a  clear-minded  person  can  doubt  it.  My  sympathy  for 
Belgium's  frightful  and  undeserved  fate  does  not  spring 
from  the  fact  that  as  the  inhabitant  of  a  small,  neutral 
country,  I  regTet  that  neutrality,  even  guaranteed,  can- 
not be  assured,  but  from  the  fact  that  I  have  a  beating 
heart.  My  entire  moral  makeup  makes  me  want  Bel- 
gium and  France  freed  from  the  enemy. 

Since  you  insist,  I  must  admit,  however,  that  upon 
this  occasion,  as  otherwise  in  life,  I  do  not  give  myself 
over  to  longings  nor  to  prayers  to  higher  powers.  I 
examine  conditions  and  try  to  understand  them.  When 
you  ask  me  who  is  in  the  right,  you  simplify  matters  so 
that  I  cannot  follow  you.  I  wish,  for  instance,  the 
French  all  luck  and  success ;  but  I  would  consider  it  a 


162  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

great  blow  to  civilisation  if  Russia  were  to  stand  with 
the  palms  of  victory  in  her  hands.  It  would  mean 
strengthening  reaction  in  Russia  and  would  fill  with 
despair  any  lover  of  liberty  for  peoples  or  individuals. 

To  you  the  whole  problem  seems  simple  and  clear. 
Right,  truth,  liberty  on  one  side;  injustice,  oppression, 
barbarism  on  the  other.  If  I  have  disappointed  you 
so  keenly,  it  is,  perhaps,  because  unlike  the  schoolmas- 
ter in  Renan's  Calihan,  my  name  is  not  ^^  Simplicon.'^ 

The  appalling  part  of  a  war  like  this  is  that  it  kills 
all  love  of  truth.  France  and  England  are  obliged  to 
gloss  over  the  Russian  Government's  ignominious  deal- 
ings in  Finland,  its  treatment  of  Poland,  which  it  prom- 
ised to  reunite,  and  where  it  begins  by  announcing  that 
Galicia  is  not  Polish  but  old  Russian  territory,  while 
it  tears  do\\Ti  Ruthenian  signs  in  Lemberg  and  puts 
Russian  ones  in  their  place.  In  the  same  way  Germany 
explains  away  the  atrocities  committed  by  German 
troops.  Bedier's  pamphlet  on  the  atrocities  is  treated 
as  a  philological  essay;  the  inaccuracies  of  the  transla- 
tion are  discussed  while  the  accusations  regarding  the 
atrocities  are  ignored. 

All  belligerent  nations  appear  to  be  in  good  faith. 
!N'ot  one  doubts  for  an  instant  that  its  cause  is  the  just 
one  and  deserving  of  victory.  All  hope  for  victory  and 
are  confident  of  winning.  Perhaps  even  the  govern- 
ments are  in  good  faith,  to  a  certain  extent. 

I  for  my  part  look  upon  the  increasing  national 


NEUTEALITY  163 

hatred  that  is  splitting  Europe  as  a  sign  of  an  immense 
reaction.  You  want  me  to  look  forward  to  the  Allies' 
victory.  The  problem  is  too  complex.  I  could,  as  I 
say,  not  rejoice  at  Eussia's  victory  and  still  less  at  Ja- 
pan's. 'Not  that  I  have  any  prejudices  or  any  feeling 
against  Japan.  I  admire  the  great  qualities  of  the 
Japanese,  whose  form  of  religion,  to  begin  with,  is  much 
superior  to  that  of  Europeans.  But  the  Japanese,  who 
are  racially  kin  to  the  Chinese,  will  probably  as  a  re- 
sult of  such  victory  eventually  dominate  the  white  race, 
after  having  wrenched  away  all  its  Asiatic  colonies. 
And  as  Japan's  culture  is  not  founded  on  Greece  and 
Kome  like  ours  but  is  different  and  foreign  to  ours, 
I  would  consider  such  an  issue  intensely  tragic. 

You  will  cry :  '^  And  you  would  expect  good  results 
from  an  Austro-German  victor}^ !  "  Not  for  a  moment. 
The  organisation  of  which  Germans  are  so  proud  has 
been  obtained  by  crushing  individualism,  which  is  es- 
sential and  precious  to  me,  and  their  unity  has  been  ob- 
tained by  oppressing  the  Danes  and  the  French  who  are 
now  obliged  to  fight  and  bleed  for  a  state  to  which  they 
belong  against  their  will.  The  Prussian  Government 
has  shown  that  nothing  is  to  be  hoped  from  it.  The 
Reichstag  during  a  recent  session  refused  to  amend  the 
exceptional  laws  governing  annexed  territory  just  as  it 
refused  to  amend  the  mediaeval  electoral  laws  of  the 
Prussian  Diet. 

But  what  if  neither  side  were  to  win  a  decisive  vie- 


164  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

tory?     Suppose  that  all  these  horrors  lead  to  nothing 
but  a  partie  remise  as  every  indication  seems  to  show  ? 

In  regard  to  England  I  look  upon  her  in  the  same 
light  as  one  of  Great  Britain's  ablest  men,  E.  D.  Morel, 
very  popular  in  France,  where  I  have  heard  him  speak. 
H^  has  a  French  mother  and  an  English  father  and  is 
therefore  half  French.  Be  it  said  to  his  honour  that 
he  lost  his  seat  in  Parliament  because  at  a  time  when 
no  one  cares  for  anything  but  flattery,  he  dared  speak 
the  truth,  and  stated  that  certain  high  officials  had  not 
told  Parliament  the  truth  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
war,  for  which  every  country  blames  its  opponent. 

I  should  like  to  bring  this  discussion  between  two  men 
equally  intent  on  seeking  truth,  back  to  one  fundamen- 
tal question. 

In  my  opinion,  statesmen  are  not  inspired  by  ethical 
considerations  but  by  political  expediency.  Even  if 
they  speak  in  the  name  of  morality  and  assure  us  that 
they  are  fighting  to  further  ethical  issues  their  object 
is  not  moral  but  political  advantage.  In  fact,  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that  as  the  world  is  constituted  to-day, 
it  is  their  duty  to  be  inspired  by  political  and  not  ethical 
motives. 

When  France  conquers  Morocco  the   object   is  not 
moral  but  political.     When  England  and  Russia  divide 
Persia  between  them,  their  object  is  not  moral  —  the 
action  itself  is,  indeed,  highly  immoral.     I  look  upon 
the  German  invasion  of  Belgium  in  the  same  way  —  as 


I^EUTRALITY  165 

an  outrageous  injustice  —  a  political  expedient.  The 
two  are  often  synonymous.  As  this  move  had  been  long 
foreseen,  however,  and  discussed  in  the  military  peri- 
odicals of  many  nations,  foreseen  even  by  a  layman  like 
myself  (who  spoke  of  it  in  lectures  in  February,  1914), 
one  is  less  surprised  that  it  occurred  than  that  France 
had  not  prepared  the  slightest  defence.  The  English 
recently  presented  King  Albert  with  a  beautiful  book, 
to  which  prominent  English  authors  and  many  foreign- 
ers contributed.  Would  rather  they  had  prevented  the 
fall  of  Antwerp! 

You,  my  dear  Clemenceau,  have  turned  this  quite  ob- 
jective discussion  into  such  a  personal  issue  that  I  feel 
obliged  to  add  a  few  words  as  to  my  personal  feelings. 

I  am  indebted  to  Germany  because,  when  forty  years 
ago  I  was  obliged  to  leave  my  country  for  five  years^ 
exile,  she  welcomed  me  with  the  greatest  hospitality  and 
never  let  me  feel  I  was  a  stranger.  German  opinion 
turned  against  me  only  when  I  protested  regarding 
Schleswig.  Since  then  it  has  been  rather  unfavourable 
to  me. 

I  am  still  more  indebted  to  England,  where  I  have 
been  received  as  in  no  other  country,  and  where  I  have 
been  met  with  the  greatest  kindness  and  cordiality.  I 
could  not  forget  or  go  back  on  England  without  being 
guilty  of  the  vilest  ingratitude. 

I  am  most  of  all  indebted  to  France,  however.  For 
my  whole  education  is  French.     Although  I  have  sought 


166  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

and  culled  knowledge  in  many  places,  everywhere  I 
could,  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  absorbed,  my  in- 
tellectual processes,  that  is,  my  entire  mentality,  I  owe 
to  France.  In  no  country  have  I  lived  as  willingly.  I 
do  not  lack  feeling,  as  you  infer  that  I  do,  nor  is  it  true, 
as  you  advance,  that  I  do  not  care  what  happens  to 
France.  My  entire  sympathy  is  with  her.  I  believe 
you  are  the  only  one  of  my  French  friends  who  has  ever 
doubted  it. 

But  I  wish  to  state  that  I  have  a  very  high  regard 
for  the  writer's  calling.  If  he  is  not  truth's  ordained 
priest  he  is  only  fit  to  be  thrown  on  the  scrap  heap.  The 
writer  dare  not,  in  order  to  ingratiate  himself  with  a 
people  or  a  class,  even  with  his  own  people,  go  back  on 
his  ideals,  no  matter  how  unpopular  they  may  be,  nor 
let  doAvn  on  them,  nor  pretend  that  he  sees  them  realised 
where  they  may  be  only  hazily  guessed.  It  is  not  the 
writer's  duty  to  speak  at  all  times  in  order  to  remain 
in  the  public  eye.  It  is  not  his  business  to  applaud, 
protest,  condole,  when  he  knows  his  words  have  neither 
weight  nor  influence. 

He  must  remain  silent  where  silence  is  golden.  And 
if  he  speaks,  he  must  look  truth  in  the  face, —  that  same 
truth  which  is  smothered  by  stupidity  in  times  of  peace, 
and  drowned  by  the  thunder  of  cannon  in  times  of  war. 


WILL  THIS  BE  THE  LAST  WAR? 

(August,  1915) 

Tlie  three  Scandinavian  countries  are  forcedly  neu- 
tral. Any  participation  in  the  war  would  jeopardise 
their  national  existence,  and  no  compensation  could  be 
offered  for  such  a  risk.  But  they  do  not  look  upon  the 
war  from  the  same  angle. 

Is"orway,  because  of  her  old  relations  and  sympathies 
with  England  and  France,  is  most  drawn  to  the  Allies. 
Yet  a  few  Nor^vegian  intellectuals,  whose  books  are  pub- 
lished in  Germany,  have  placed  themselves  passionately 
on  Germany's  side. 

As  Sweden  fears  Russia  —  with  reason,  for  Russia 
abolished  the  Finnish  constitution  and  flooded  Sweden 
with  Russian  spies  —  the  Swedish  upper  classes  are 
pro-German  to  a  certain  extent. 

It  is  self-evident  that  Denmark  must  maintain  an 
absolute  neutrality.  The  distance  between  Kiel  and 
Danish  territory  is  covered  in  two  hours,  and  we  could 
have  the  German  fleet  outside  of  Copenhagen  within 
two  hours  after  a  declaration  of  war.  Denmark  could 
not  provoke  a  power  like  Germany  without  committing 
suicide.     Half  a  century  ago  Denmark  was  assailed  by 

167 


168  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

the  united  forces  of  Austria  and  Germany,  and  resisted 
a  whole  year  without  the  slightest  assistance  from  any 
European  Power.  This  example  (quite  superfluous, 
it  is  true)  shows  the  incredible  short-sightedness  of  Eng- 
lish and  French  diplomats  who,  without  protesting  in 
any  way,  allowed  Germany  to  acquire  the  port  of  Kiel 
and  to  annex  two-fifths  of  Denmark's  territory. 
Since  that  time  these  provinces  have  been  ruled  as  the 
Germans  rule  all  conquered  territories.  Danish  must 
not  be  spoken  in  churches  or  schools;  Danish  colours 
must  not  be  displayed,  not  even  in  women's  clothes ;  ex- 
pulsions and  vexations  are  the  order  of  the  day.  For 
years  parents  were  deprived  of  their  children  if  the  lit- 
tle ones  were  brought  up  in  the  respect  of  Denmark  and 
Danish  traditions.  The  Reichstag  has  voted  appropri- 
ations for  buying  up  Danish  land  in  Schleswig,  and 
Polish  land  in  Posen.  Young  Schleswigers  are  obliged 
to  fight  and  bleed  in  the  German  ranks  for  a  fatherland 
in  which  they  are  treated  like  outcasts. 

For  weighty  reasons,  therefore,  Denmark  cannot  sym- 
pathise with  Germany.  Yet  Germany's  organisation 
inspires  respect.  If,  beyond  this,  Danish  intellectuals 
are  not  unresei'vedly  for  the  Allies,  the  reason  is  simply 
that  they  cannot  look  upon  the  Allies  as  forming  one 
solid  block.  In  spite  of  all  attempts  to  gloss  over  the 
differences  in  the  nations  of  the  Entente,  the  neutral 
observer  cannot  regard  them  as  imbued  with  identical 
ideals. 


WILL  THIS  BE  THE  LAST  WAR?       169 

For  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  a  human  being 
who  knows  something  besides  what  he  reads  in  the 
papers,  or  for  any  one  who  has  travelled,  studied  or 
acquired  some  knowledge  of  European  conditions,  to 
sympathise  with  England,  France,  and  Russia  at  the 
same  time.  The  very  things  which  inspire  his  feeling 
for  England  and  France  make  him  turn  away  from 
Russia  —  and  vice  versa.  The  reactionary  and  con- 
servative elements  throughout  the  world  —  those  who 
hate  democracy  and  worship  autocracy,  not  enlightened 
autocracy,  but  the  insidious,  dark  one  —  naturally  hope 
for  Russia's  victory.  On  the  other  hand,  all  who  value 
constitutional  liberty,  humane  government  and  real  en- 
lightenment S}Tnpathise  with  France  and  England. 

But  only  those  who  have  been  blinded  by  national 
fanaticism  can  sympathise  with  both  the  East  and  the 
West.  The  very  elements  for  which  Germany  is  hated 
are  even  more  exaggerated  in  Russia  —  the  East  — 
while  Germany,  on  the  other  hand,  has  many  of  the 
attributes  which  impel  one  to  sympathise  with  the 
West  —  England  and  France. 

Of  course  ignorance  and  falsehood  have  formed  an 
alliance  to  explain  away  the  Russian  Government's  most 
hideous  crimes,  just  as  Germany's  violations  of  law  and 
justice  are  painted  as  something  absolutely  unheard  of, 
the  like  of  which  no  civilised  power  has  ever  been  guilty 
of.  Such  explanations  impress  only  those  who  are  as 
ignorant  as  new  born  babes  (although  it  is  not  to  be 


170  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

denied  that  the  majority  in  most  countries  undoubtedly 
are  in  this  state  of  semi-intentional  ignorance).  The 
sound  sense  of  the  masses  and  their  intuitive  conception 
of  right  have  never  been  anything  but  a  democratic 
legend. 

For  the  masses  believe,  as  a  rule,  every  lie  that  is 
cleverly  presented  to  them.  They  believe,  as  "  eye  wit- 
nesses '^  claim  to  have  seen,  a  Russian  army  passing 
through  England  in  September,  1914.  They  believe 
what  a  few  Danes  insist  they  saw,  Belgian  children  in 
Copenhagen,  with  their  hands  cut  off.  Of  course  there 
were  no  such  children  in  Copenhagen.  The  English 
minister,  J.  F.  Matthews  (Baptist  Church,  Sheffield), 
declared  from  the  pulpit  in  March,  1915,  that  a  Bel- 
gian girl  whose  nose  had  been  cut  off  and  whose  body 
had  been  ripped  open  by  the  Germans,  had  now  re- 
covered and  was  living  in  Sheffield.  The  whole  affair 
proved  to  be  a  flight  of  imagination,  but  it  was  given 
general  credence. 

The  affair  may  be  classed  with  the  telegraphic  report 
that  Kaiser  Wilhelm  decorated  the  Almighty  with  the 
Iron  Cross  as  reward  for  His  invaluable  assistance  in 
Belgium,  l^orthem  France,  and  in  East  Prussia. 

To  a  certain  extent  the  European  press  is  not  entirely 
to  blame.  ]^o  one  is  allowed  to  speak  the  truth  about 
the  political  situation. 

The  belligerents  —  none  of  them  —  allow  truth  to 
find  expression.     Every  time  Truth  tries  to  rise  out  of 


WILL  THIS  BE  THE  LAST  WAR?       171 

her  well,  an  ever-vigilant  censor  immediately  ducks  her 
he^d  under  water  again.  Truth  is  smothered  as  one 
smotliers  an  unwelcome  kitten.  The  object  of  the  cen- 
sorship is  to  prevent  the  publication  of  any  material 
which  might  convey  information  to  the  enemy.  But  it 
has  another  mission:  that  of  stifling  criticisms  of  the 
army  or  the  Administration,  no  matter  how  justified 
they  may  be,  and  to  present  everything  in  a  rosy  light 
to  the  native  reader. 

Even  in  small  neutral  countries  laws  have  been  passed 
to  prevent  the  publication  of  remarks  which  might  im- 
peril neutrality  by  offending  a  belligerent  country. 

The  United  States  constituting  a  great  power, 
beyond  reach,  and^in  no  danger  of  attack^  is  the  only 
country  where  a  neutral  writer  can  say  what  he  be- 
lieves to  be  true. 

I  witnessed  the  War  of  1870-Tl.  I  was  in  France 
and  Italy  at  the  time  and  read  the  French  papers  care- 
fully. They  never  spoke  the  truth,  of  course.  The 
truth  was  too  sad.  One  of  the  duties  of  the  press  was 
to  infuse  confidence  into  public  opinion  and  to  stimu- 
late it  during  reverses.  Finally,  however,  part  of  the 
truth  leaked  out,  and  the  losses  had  to  be  admitted.  But 
all  the  articles  were  characterised  by  one  phrase,  "  At 
least  we  may  be  consoled  by  the  thought  that  this  is 
the  last  war.'^ 

Since  then  there  have  been  a  dozen  bloody  wars,  and 
now  the  worst  of  them  all  has  lasted  a  year.     And  still 


172  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

the  imbecile  refrain  rings  in  article  after  article,  in  all 
countries,  "  xVt  least  there  is  consolation  in  the  thought 
that  this  will  be  the  last  war.'' 

That  is  to  say,  from  next  year  on  humanity  will 
change  its  very  nature.  Its  boundless  stupidity  will 
become  reason:  its  unlimited  ferocity  will  turn  into 
gentle  and  peaceful  good  will. 

The  Germans  deny  the  atrocities  in  Belgium;  the 
Russians  deny  the  atrocities  in  East  Prussia ;  the  Aus- 
trians  deny  the  atrocities  in  Serbia. 

Even  if  many  reports  of  the  atrocities  may  be  imag- 
inary or  exaggerated  —  and  this  has  been  proved  — 
there  is  enough  left.  And  I,  for  my  part,  do  not  doubt 
the  brutality  of  all  sides.  I  know  the  Germans  are 
civilised,  the  Russians  good-natured,  the  Austrians 
smart.  But  war  brutalises  every  one.  If  murder  of 
the  so-called  enemy  is  made  the  order  of  the  day  and  the 
destruction  of  his  cities  and  fields  a  holy  duty,  then  all 
the  worst  instincts  are  given  free  reign  everywhere. 
From  under  the  varnish  of  civilisation  the  cave  man  ^" 
rushes  forth,  and  his  status  is  that  of  the  Stone  Age. 

A  pessimist  once  remarked  that  humanity  is  ^'  a  gang 
of  brutes."     He  was  mistaken.     Humanity  is  divided 
into  a  series  of  different  gangs,  all  fighting  each  other,  , 
and  each  one  trying  to  beat  the  others.  '-  > 

"  As  this  motive  is  never  admitted,  all  nations  purport 
to  be  fighting  for  ideals.  Each  of  the  warring  parties 
is  fighting  for  right,  truth,  order,  or  libert}'.     Even  a 


WILL  THIS  BE  THE  LAST  WAR?       173 

despotic  country  like  Russia  is  fighting  for  liberty,  even 
for  the  liberty  of  Poland,  which  it  has  systematically^ 
and  relentlessly  crushed  by  means  of  the  most  ingenious 
tortures  during  the  last  half  century. 

In  short,  every  state  proclaims  the  high  ideals  it  is 
fighting  for.  All  without  exception  are  fighting  for 
their  own  defence  —  to  protect  right ;  their  right. 

Of  course  they  do  not  feel  impelled  to  make  right  pre- 
vail. My  country,, riqht  or  wrong!  suffices.  Each  na- 
tion fights  for  itself.  In  these  days  when  patriotism  is 
praised  as  the  highest  virtue,  the  spirit  of  world  citizen- 
ship is  the  object  of  deepest  scorn. 

In  the  lulls  between  wars,  humanity  imagine&it  is 
at  peace  at  last  and  that  no  more  wars  will  arise.  Hu- 
manity does  not  want  and  does  not  dare  to  look  l;ruth 
in  the  eyes.  If  war  breaks  out,  in  spite  of  optimistic 
assertions,  humanity  reacts  and  cries  that  after  this 
war  justice  and  peace  will  reign.  Every  war  is  to  be 
the  last  war. 


THE  PKAISE  OF  WAK 

(September,  1915) 

The  peculiarly  refreshing  thing  about  the  average 
mortal  is  his  inability  to  understand  even  the  simplest 
thought. 

Instead  of  feeling  hurt  or  aggravated  thereby,  the- 
philosopher  should  give  himself  up  to  the  sheer  artistic 
pleasure  of  comparing  the  individual's  complete  mental 
helplessness  with  his  self-assurance  in  judging,  con- 
demning, perorating,  with  unbounded  pride. 

When  I  wrote  some  time  ago  that  Denmark  would 
gain  nothing  by  acquiring  j^orth  Schleswig  if  the  Ger- 
man Empire  were  humiliated  so  that  it  would  be  filled 
with  revenge  and  a  determination  to  seize  the  provinces 
again  at  the  first  opportunity,  a  cry  rose  against  me 
in  the  Danish  and  the  French  press.  Esteemed  "  fel- 
low citizens  "  attacked  me  in  the  back  in  French  papers. 
I  have  been  positively  bombarded  with  insults  in  anony- 
mous and  signed  letters.  Not  only  am  I  accused  of 
having  shown  myself  up  as  an  immeasurable  coward, 
but,  as  insidiously  suggested  by  Clemengeau,  I  suffer 
from  a  peculiar  mental  aberration.  I  seem  to  nourish 
a  sort  of  idiotic  fear  that  Germany  be  humiliated.     As 

174 


THE  PRAISE  OF  WAR  ITS 

if  Denmark  had  not  been  humiliated,  France  humili- 
ated, etc. !  A  physician  must  feel  as  I  when  all  the 
patients  in  an  insane  asylum  scream  that  he  is  the  in- 
sane man  among  them. 

The  student  of  humanity  cannot  doubt  but  that  the 
war  madness  which  rages  all  over  the  earth  is  a  relapse 
to  the  oldest  hereditary  instincts.  It  goes  back  to  the 
Stone  Age.  The  old  Mexicans  worshipped  the  war 
god  above  all  other  gods.  He  was  the  supreme  pro- 
tector of  the  tribe.  In  all  Egv^ptian  literature  there 
is  not  one  word  of  criticism  against  war.  In  old  Hellas, 
war  was  the  normal  relation  between  cities,  and  it  was 
an  accepted  fact  that  whenever  a  city  was  conquered 
all  the  men  were  killed  and  the  women  and  children 
carried  away  and  sold  into  slavery. 

In  old  Israel,  Jehovah  desired  war  and  wished  it 
carried  out  in  the  most  merciless  way.  If  a  king  spared 
his  enemies  he  was  accused  of  disobeying  the  prophet, 
whereas  he  was  considered  dear  to  God's  heart  if  he 
exercised  the  most  ingenious  cruelty. 

Without  knowing  anything  about  these  precedents, 
the  old  Vikings,  a  couple  of  thousand  years  thereafter, 
on  their  expeditions  to  England  and  I^ormandy,  were 
equally  convinced  that  their  gods  were  pleased  by  their 
warfare.  In  the  Christian  Era  victory  —  no  matter 
how  it  may  have  been  won  —  was  always  considered 
the  judgment  of  God,  a  sign  of  divine  grace,  and  a  proof 
of  the  justice  of  the  cause.     The  vanquished  had  to  be 


176  ,    THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

content  to  let  their  priests  explain  the  defeat  was  due  to 
their  past  sins  and  God's  wrath  therefor. 

Victor  Cherbulliez  once  calculated  that  from  the  year 
1500  B.  c,  to  about  1860  a.  d.  about  eight  thousand 
peace  treaties  had  been  signed,  each  one  supposed  to 
secure  permanent  peace  and  each  one  lasting  on  an 
average  two  years. 

A  peace  treaty  does  not  guarantee  peace.  ISTeither 
does  a  convention  signed  by  all  the  Powers.  Machia- 
velli  once  said  something  which  all  the  sovereigns  and 
statesmen  of  to-day  seem  to  bear  in  mind :  "  A  prudent 
ruler  does  not  keep  his  word  if  by  so  doing  he  goes 
against  his  best  interests,  or  if  the  reasons  which  in- 
duced him  to  bind  himself  no  longer  exist."  One 
would  think  Machiavelli  had  foreseen  the  year  1914. 
Another  political  essayist,  the  Englig^  Major  Steward 
Murray,  completes  Machiavefli's  remark:  "The  Eu- 
ropean waste  basket  is  the  place  where  all  treaties  sooner 
or  later  find  their  way.  It  is  unwise  to  allow  one's  fate 
to  depend  on  something  which  will  probably  find  its 
way  to  the  waste  basket." 

ISTational  security  is  not  to  be  had  by  treaties.  I^or 
yet  by  war.  If  this  had  been  the  case,  the  war  of  1871 
would  have  settled  the  problem  of  Alsace-Lorraina 
Security  is  only  to  be  had  when  the  difficulty  is  resolved 
in  a  way  which  hoth  parties  consider  just.  This  solu- 
tion does  not  satisfy  "  pen  heroes  "  whose  number  is 
legion,  but  it  does  satisfy  human  beings,  and  fortu- 


THE  PEAISE  OF  WAR  177 

nately  their  number  is  greater.  And  I  for  one  have 
a  sincere  and  not  wholly  unjustified  hope  that  even- 
tually common  sense  will  dominate  and  that  the  logic 
of  things  will  prove  more  powerful  than  the  madness 
of  fanatics. 

From  a  former  article  several  papers  have  concluded 
I  consider  the  struggle  against  war  hopeless  and  even 
regard  war  as  a  beneficent  power.  In  the  article  I 
merely  hinted  that  this  might  not  be  the  last  war  and 
that  it  might  not  usher  in  a  reign  of  justice  on  earth. 

I  simply  meant  that  human  nature  evolves  very  slowly 
for  the  better.  By  nature  man  is  but  a  higher  sort  of 
beast  of  prey,  an  evolved  ape. 

But  let  no  one  believe  that  I  imply  humanity  will 
never  rid  itself  of  war.  One  thing,  however,  is  sure. 
The  methods  used  by  the  nations  hitherto  do  not  bring 
them  nearer  the  goal. 

The  Allies  claim  in  chorus  that  the  object  of  the  war 
is  to  crush  Prussian  militarism.  But  as  surely  as 
two  and  two  are  four,  militarism  cannot  he  crushed  hy 
militarism. 

The  attempts  to  do  so  are  fruitless,  insane. 

But  this  does  not  mean  that  militarism  will  never  be 
eradicated.  Merely  that  it  will  come  about  in  some 
other  way. 

Let  us  look  at  the  few  connected  links  of  progress 
forged  by  humanity. 

They  have  been  made  by  thinkers. 


178  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Religious  fanaticism  was  a  frightful  scourge  for  hu- 
manity —  as  frightful  as  rabid  patriotism  in  our  day. 

For  religious  reasons  Christians  and  Mohammedans 
murdered  each  other  throughout  the  centuries.  The 
fniitless  Crusades  were  wars  of  religion.  The  Moors 
and  the  Jews  were  driven  from  Spain  for  religious  rea- 
sons. Jews  and  heretics  were  for  centuries  dragged 
to  the  stake  in  religion's  name.  For  religion  the  im- 
mense bonfires  burned  witches  in  Europe  and  America. 
Even  in  Shakespeare's  day  the  tortures  perpetrated  in 
the  name  of  religion  constituted  a  public  as  well  as  a 
royal  spectacle;  they  were  one  of  the  court  diversions. 
Just  as  Mary  Stuart  was  a  cheerful  spectator  to  reli- 
gious and  political  mass  murders,  so  her  son,  King 
James,  was  pleased  to  be  present  at  the  torture  of  a 
Dr.  Fian.  Accused  of  having  conjured  up  a  storm  at 
sea,  the  knuckles  of  his  bones  were  broken  and  his 
nails  were  pulled  out  and  needles  stuck  through  his 
bleeding  fingertips. 

In  January,  1695,  that  paragon  of  virtue,  August  the 
Strong  of  Saxony,  had  Xeitschütz's  widow  tortured  on 
the  rack  as  guilty  of  the  witchcraft  whereby  her  daugh- 
ter Sibylle,  who  died  at  the  age  of  nineteen,  inspired 
the  passionate  love  of  the  deceased  Elector  John 
George. 

The  Hussite  wars  and  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  which 
ravaged  Germany  and  Bohemia,  were  wars  of  religion. 

Incredible  though  it  may  be,  we  no  longer  crush  the 


THE  PRAISE  OF  WAR  179 

knuckles  of  magicians  nor  do  we  burn  heretics,  Jews,  or 
witches.  We  do  not  declare  war  for  the  sake  of  reli- 
gion. It  is  inconceivable  to-day  that  Philip  II  should 
ravage  Flanders  because  the  inhabitants  are  Protes- 
tants. This  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  Flanders 
of  to-day  is  any  better  off. 

For,  as  we  all  know,  religious  fanaticism  has  given 
way  to  national  madness.  But  if  we  have  succeeded  in 
knocking  the  teeth  out  of  the  religious-mad  hounds,  we 
may  conceive  a  hope  of  eventually  knocking  the  teeth 
out  of  national  hatred.  '  After  all,  religion  is  founded 
on  older  and  more  respectable  traditions.  Some  day 
nationalistic  insanity  may  find  its  Voltaire. 

Among  certain  races  and  in  certain  countries  we  have 
seen  deep-rooted  conventions  of  honour  overcome.  Few 
institutions  were  as  soundly  entrenched  as  the  duel. 
It  is  founded  on  some  of  the  finest  instincts  in  human- 
ity, on  hatred  to  injustice,  the  desire  for  redress,  on 
honour,  aristocratic  tradition  and  personal  pride.  In 
the  eighteenth  century  it  still  flourished  among  Anglo- 
Saxons,  as  well  as  among  Latins,  Germans,  and  Slavs. 
It  is  still  ineradicable  in  Germany  and  France.  But  in 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  it  is  dead,  as  in  the 
Scandinavian  countries. 

If  the  duel  could  die  a  natural  death  one  may  dream 
of  a  day  when  war  will  die.  But  just  as  the  duel  could 
not  be  eradicated  by  decapitating  duellists,  as  attempted 
by  Richelieu,  so  militarism  cannot  be  uprooted  by  con- 


180  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

scription,  long  military  service  and  a  profusion  of  mu- 
nitions. 

Think  of  all  the  prejudices  that  had  to  be  destroyed 
before  the  duel  disappeared !  Such  scorn  and  derision 
as  met  the  man  who  refused  to  challenge  if  insulted! 
What  a  school  for  courage,  honour  and  personal  dignity 
the  duel  was  for  thousands  of  years !  And  yet,  quietly, 
unobtrusively,  without  cries  or  regrets,  it  has  been  elimi- 
nated and  forgotten  by  the  most  civilised  nations  of 
humanity. 

According  to  its  partisans,  its  disappearance  ought 
to  have  caused  a  weakening  of  the  moral  fibre,  given 
birth  to  cowardice  and  a  plebeian  mode  of  thought. 
Yet  no  man  in  his  senses  considers  the  American  or 
the  Englishman  less  of  a  man  than  the  Frenchman  or 
the  German. 

There  is  no  more  reason  to  praise  war  than  there  is 
to  praise  the  duel.  ^^^.^ 

We  often  read  that  were  it  not  for  the  qualities  de- 
veloped by  war  humanity  would  lose  stamina,  decay. 
But  those  of  us  who  are  not  awed  by  words  are  not 
convinced. 

In  a  few  small  and  slightly  civilised  communities  the 
disappearance  of  the  duel  may,  perhaps,  favour  impu- 
dences of  the  press.  Newspapers  may  be  more  circum- 
spect when  an  offence  calls  forth  a  challenge.  But  in 
larger  communities,  in  England  or  America,  men  have 
not  lost  their  honour  .^-ince  the  duel  disappeared,  nor 


THE  PKAISE  OF  WAE  181 

has  life,  on  the  whole,  become  less  rich.  Kor  has  lux- 
ury increased  nor  idealism  diminished. 

The  disappearance  of  war  would  not  be  more  fatal 
to  the  highest  values  in  life  than  the  elimination  of  the 
duel. 

We  are  all  acquainted  with  the  old  rigmarole  that 
absence  of  war  would  not  advance  the  world  but  would 
dull  mankind  and  allow  it  to  relapse  into  a  life  of  ease. 
We  know  Moltke's  words,  logical  in  the  mouth  of  a 
general,  that  permanent  peace  is  a  dream  and  not  even 
a  beautiful  one.  We  have  all  heard  that  war  alone  de- 
velops a  nation's  self-sacrifice  and  enthusiasm. 

l\o  one  can  deny  that  war  gives  birth  to  something 
besides  horrors  and  atrocities  without  number.  It  re- 
veals heroism,  abnegation.  But  this  is  no  reason  for 
worshipping  it. 

A  fire  gives  courageous  firemen  an  opportunity  to 
show  their  bravery,  their  agility,  and  endurance;  but 
no  one  praises  fires,  least  of  all  a  blaze  that  destroys 
a  city. 

Appalling  epidemics  give  conscientious  doctors  and 
brave  nurses  an  opportunity  to  display  heroism,  fore- 
thought, intelligence,  and  quick-wittedness,  and  many 
other  virtues;  but  no  one  sings  hymns  to  cholera  or 
typhus. 

Poverty  and  misery  often  occasion  charity  and  hu- 
man-kindness. Yet  no  thinking  person  feels  that  these 
qualities  justify  starvation. 


182  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Europe  at  the  present  moment  is  in  the  hands  of 
moderately  endowed  political  dilettantes.  lie  who  ad- 
mires statesmanship  has  no  cause  for  admiration.  All 
progress  made  hy  Europe  is  being  turned  into  mass 
murder,  for  the  ultimate  profit  of  the  Powers  outside 
of  Europe  which,  in  the  future,  will  fight  for  supremacy : 
Japan  and  the  United  States.  Europe  is  being  bled  to 
death  by  its  own  towering  and  almost  imposing  insanity. 

In  the  face  of  this  apparent  almightiness  of  brutality, 
some  of  the  younger  generation  seem  to  feel  that  abso- 
lute brutality  is  real  civilisation.  I  wish  they  would 
abandon  this  view.  A  single,  genial,  active  personality 
is  worth  more  to  the  world  than  all  masterly  organised 
brutality. 


PROTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  NATIOI^S 

(October,  1915) 

The  inhabitants  of  all  belligerent  countries  are 
convinced  that  in  this  world  war  their  country  is  in 
the  right  and  the  enemy  in  the  wrong.  When  the 
writer  from  a  neutral  country  does  not  use  these  quali- 
fications taken  from  an  ethical  or  jurisprudential  vo- 
cabulary, but  remarks  that  the  whole  immense  war  is 
beyond  right  and  wrong,  the  leading  men  in  belligerent 
countries  call  out,  so  as  to  show  up  his  lack  of  judgment 
and  his  superculture : 

"  Answer !  Which  side  is  in  the  right,  which  side 
in  the  wrong  ? '' 

Eight !  As  if  it  had  anything  to  do  with  the  bound- 
less misery  which  the  rivalry  of  nations  and  the  folly 
of  political  dilettantes  and  the  shortsightedness  and 
servility  of  a  yellow  press  have  brought  over  the  w^orld ! 

The  French  and  English  have  naturally  taken  as  the 
basis  for  their  propaganda  two  facts  which  revolted  all 
humanity:  Austria-Hungary's  attack  on  Serbia  — 
which,  after  the  receipt  of  the  ultimatum,  had  done 
everything  within  its  power  to  agree  to  the  Austrian  de- 

183 


184  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

mands  in  order  to  prevent  war,  and  Germany^s  viola- 
tion of  Belgian  neutrality  —  an  act  which  even  the 
German  Chancellor  admitted  was  wrong,  and  to  which 
the  Germans  added  atrocities  without  number. 

But  when  this  double  attack  is  presented  as  uncalled 
for,  and  as  if  it  did  not  have  a  long  premeditated  his- 
tory, and  the  generalisation  is  made  that  neither  France 
nor  England  wanted  war  —  that  they  are  merely  fight- 
ing to  protect  small  nations  and  to  guard  the  sanctity 
of  signed  treaties, —  then  he  who  knows  anything  about 
the  history  of  Europe  in  modern  times  and  who  did  not 
abdicate  all  power  of  thought  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  must  pause  and  wonder. 

And  the  more  so  because  Germany,  in  spite  of  her 
inhuman  treatment  of  the  Polish,  Danish,  and  French 
elements  within  the  empire,  also  claims  to  be  fighting 
for  the  rights  and  the  independence  of  small  nations. 
She  is  fighting  Russia,  who  with  still  less  regard  for 
solemnly  made  pledges  than  Germany  has  let  the  Fin- 
nish people  feel  her  wrath,  and  who  in  the  kingdom  of 
Poland  has  kept  the  Poles  and  even  more  the  Jews  in 
an  outrageous  state  of  oppression.  Germany  claims 
to  be  fighting  both  Russia  and  England,  who  united  to 
abolish  Persia's  independence  and  her  constitution. 
The  division  of  Persia,  by  the  way,  is  one  of  the  most 
instructive  events  of  our  day  and  illustrates  the  attitude 
of  great  nations  in  regard  to  the  weaker  states. 

Indeed,  it  may  be  claimed  without  exaggeration  that 


PKOTECTORS  OF  SMALL  NATIONS     185 

when  two  great  nations  form  a  real  close  and  whole- 
hearted association,  whether  called  alliance,  agreement, 
or  entente,  the  object  is  to  deprive  a  small  state  of  its 
independence.  The  former  friendship  between  Russia 
and  Germany  grew  out  of  the  splitting  of  Poland.  The 
more  recent  alliance  between  Austria  and  Germany  was 
sealed  at  the  expense  of  Denmark.  The  hearty  under- 
standing between  France  and  England  was  reached  over 
Morocco.  This  war  is  rich  in  examples  which  it  is 
not  yet  timely  to  discuss.  On  the  whole,  the  attitude 
of  the  great  nations  in  regard  to  the  weaker  states  is 
dictated  by  their  own  interests. 

Germany's  solicitude  for  small  states,  made  with  all 
seriousness  now,  in  reference  to  Poland,  for  instance, 
strikes  the  impartial  listener  as  a  tragic  jest.  But 
Great  Britain's  great  solicitude  for  the  smaller  nations 
is  also  of  comparatively  recent  date.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  refer  to  England's  treatment  of  Ireland  for 
seven  centuries.  Suffice  to  recall  that  in  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  England,  for  political  reasons 
which  had  very  little  to  do  with  right,  attacked  Den- 
mark, which  was  then  absolutely  neutral,  bombarded 
Copenhagen,  and  while  the  Danish  army  lay  in  Holstein 
to  guard  its  neutrality,  sank  and  destroyed  Denmark's 
fleet  and  gave  Norway  to  Bernadotte  as  a  reward  be- 
cause he  deserted  Napoleon. 

In  the  last  twelve  years  alone,  five  small  states  have 
lost  their  independence.     For  perfectly  valid  reasons 


186  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

\neitlier  France  nor  England  made  the  slightest  pro- 
cest. 

i  The  republics  of  Transvaal  and  Orange  lost  their  in- 
cdependence  when  England  appropriated  their  territory 
■which,  since  that  time,  she  has  governed  admirably. 

Persia  lost  her  independence  by  what  even  in  Eng- 
;  land  has  been  called  ''  a  bargain  of  thieves  "  between 
]  Russia  and  England.  Morocco  was  divided  into  two 
'  unequal  parts  by  Spain  and  France,  as  a  compensation 
H  for  giving  England  free  hands  in  Egj-pt  and  for  allow- 
ing her  the  privilege  of  breaking  her  promise  to  leave 
the  country. 

Conditions  in  Korea  are  warnings  of  the  fate  which 
threatens  Belgium.  Korea's  neutrality  was  guaranteed 
by  Japan,  Russia,  England,  and  France,  and  by  the 
signatures  of  all  these  Powers  on  treaties.  The  Queen 
of  Korea  was  murdered  by  the  Japanese,  as  Austria- 
Hungary's  throne  successor  by  the  Serbians.  Shortly 
thereafter  the  Japanese  pounced  on  Korea  and  obliged 
the  Koreans  to  side  with  them  and  declare  war  on  Rus- 
<  sia.  Both  Russia  and  Korea  objected,  and  asked  Eng- 
ü  land  and  France  to  interv^ene.  But  neither  Power  felt 
any  inclination  to  interfere.  Neither  felt  affected  be- 
cause a  treaty  of  neutrality  and  independence  was 
broken.  Korea's  independence  was  then  on  its  death- 
bed, and  is  now  no  more. 

Now  Europe  is  lying  on  her  sickbed,  or  possibly  even 
on  her  deathbed.     One  is  usually  silent  in  a  death 


PROTECTORS  OF  SMALL  STATIONS      187 

chamber.  At  any  rate  one  approaches  Europe's  sick- 
bed as  hesitatingly  and  carefully  as  one  would  approach 
the  sickroom  of  a  human  being. 


An  interesting  explanation  of  France's  participation 
in  the  war  was  given  me  a  short  time  ago  in  a  letter 
signed  "  Georges  Danville  "  from  Senegal,  West  Africa. 
I  am  quoting  it  because  it  reflects  an  educated  French- 
man's truthful  view  of  his  country's  attitude  during  the 
last  generation,  although  I  am  not  entirely  in  accord 
with  it.     He  writes: 

"  Dear  Dr.  Brandes : 

"  Very  far  from  the  battle-field,  in  Soudan,  where 
the  mobilisation  overtook  me  and  where  it  has  kept  me 
ever  since,  I  learn  by  the  Mercure  de  France  of  May, 
1915,  of  your  polemic  with  Clemengeau  and  of  most 
foreigners'  conception  of  the  French  people's  attitude 
in  the  war. 

^^  At  the  distance  from  which  I  write  it  is  hard  to 
intrude.  Will  you  allow  me  briefly  to  explain  the  truth 
about  the  politics  and  the  attitude  in  France  of  to-day 
and  yesterday?  It  is  strange  that  no  foreigner  has 
been  able  to  penetrate  French  spirit  sufiiciently  to  grasp 
certain  fundamental  truths.  Most  assuredly  no  French 
paper  could  print  what  I  am  going  to  say,  just  as  no 
well  known  French  author  could  sign  his  name  to  it. 


188  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

This  enforced  silence  is  doubtlessly  the  cause  of  the 
misunderstanding  between  us  and  the  outside  world. 

"  The  simple  truth  is : 

"  In  the  first  place :  There  is  a  profound  difference 
between  French  and  German  culture;  it  seems  to  have 
its  root  in  the  very  essence  of  the  two  nations.  Amal- 
gamation, reunion,  or  relationship  between  them  is  im- 
possible. There  reigns  an  absolute  and  everlasting 
mutual  nonunderstanding.  Yet  war  would  never  have 
been  declared  because  the  two  peoples  did  not  under- 
stand each  other  and  never  could. 

"  Secondly :  Economically  speaking  the  Germans 
flooded  France  as  they  did  all  countries  of  the  world. 
(I  am  not  speaking  of  espionage,  as  that  is  a  military 
institution  —  I  am  dealing  only  with  the  economic 
problem.)  But  in  spite  of  the  German  influx  in  French 
life  there  was  no  visible  loss  of  French  capital  nor  any 
increase  in  poverty,  which  is  very  rare  in  France,  and 
almost  always  caused  by  laziness  or  drink.  A  few  at- 
tempts were  made  to  rid  France  of  Germany's  economic 
domination,  but  France  would  never  have  gone  to  war 
to  protect  her  trade  or  industry. 

"  In  other  words :  l^either  racial  differences  nor 
economic  competition  led  us  to  look  upon  the  Germans 
as  enemies  no  matter  how  little  we  understood  them. 

"Further:  Since  1871  there  has  never  been  any 
real  political  rivalry  between  France  and  Germany. 
In  spite  of  appearances  which  would  seem  to  prove  the 


PROTECTORS  OF  SMALL  NATIONS      189 

contrary,  there  was  no  rivalry  in  Morocco,  Turkey,  in 
Antwerp,  the  Mediterranean,  nor  the  Baltic.  Nowhere 
in  the  world.  This  Germany  admitted  when  she  ac- 
cused us  of  being  England's  cat's  paw  and  dupes. 

"  The  Germans  were  right,  in  one  sense,  except  that 
we  knew  what  we  were  doing  and  even  helped  create 
the  illusion. 

"  But,  you  will  say,  wasn't  Germany  the  hereditary 
enemy?  Not  at  all.  The  first  generation  of  Erench- 
men  who  looked  upon  Geraiany  as  the  enemy  are  still 
alive.  They  belong  to  the  generation  that  fought  in 
the  War  of  1871.  The  enemy  which  we,  without  in- 
terruption and  for  a  thousand  years  have  fought  —  not 
long  ago  here  in  Soudan. —  is  England.  You  cannot 
imagine  how  often  we  hear :  *  At  the  time  of  the 
Eashoda  incidents  who  would  ever  have  thought  Eng- 
land and  France  would  fight  side  by  side  on  French 
territory !  '  And  many  a  foreigner  will  remember  the 
enthusiasm  with  which  Commandant  Marchand  was 
received  in  Marseilles,  Lyons,  Paris. 

^^  Most  assuredly  it  is  long  since  the  French  hated 
the  English.  The  Englishman  is  not  our  enemy  by  cul- 
ture or  race.  Yet  from  an  historical  and  political 
standpoint  he  is  the  typical  enemy.  He  has  at  all 
times  been  a  rival  in  our  desire  for  national  expansion, 
and  we  know  very  well  that  he  would  have  clashed  with 
us  as  recently  as  in  1905  if  a  settlement  had  not  been 
reached.     As  for  Russia,  we  do  not  know  her.     The 


V 
190  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

masses  look  upon  the  Russian  as  the  good-natured  giant 
we  read  about  in  the  fairy  tales.  He  is  the  giant  who 
comes  to  help  us.  The  educated  public  looks  upon  Rus- 
sia in  two  different  ways.  First  as  an  ally  with  inex- 
haustible troops  to  which  we,  with  our  stationary  birth 
rate,  have  loaned  billions  to  balance  Germany's  steadJlv 
increasing  population  in  the  event  of  a  war.  That  is 
why  Russia,  from  the  day  war  broke  out,  was  called  by 
journalists  the  '  steam  roller.'  We  also  look  upon  the 
Russians  as  oppressed  by  the  upper  classes  and  by  the 
Tzar's  bureaucracy.  But  these  conditions  do  not  affect 
our  political  alliance.  Most  Frenchmen  make  a  point 
of  never  discussing  them.  Only  the  most  rabid  Social- 
ists make  an  exception  to  this  seemly  attitude.  All  in 
all  the  Franco-Russian  alliance,  entailing  the  loan  of 
billions,  w^as  a  political  necessity  created  by  a  Germany 
strutting  with  bayonets. 

'^  To  conclude :  What  cannot  be  effaced  between 
France  and  Germany,  is  Alsace-Lorraine,  and  this  is 
not  a  political  question  but  an  anatomical  one. 

"  Before  the  days  of  the  Revolution  political  treaties 
were  made  and  broken  just  as  one  changed  clothes: 
every  ten  or  twenty  years  the  landmarks  were  moved. 
The  border  populations  changed  rulers  without  com- 
plaint, were  satisfied  with  their  fate,  looked  upon  every 
judgment  as  fate.  Then  the  nineteenth  century  real- 
ised that  the  Revolution  had  penetrated  the  world  with 
a  new  principle  —  nationalism.     The  feeling  took  root, 


PKOTECTORS  OF  SMALL  :N'ATI0XS      191 

grew,  became  an  irresistible  power.  Germany's  iinity 
is  the  result  of  it.  Yet  at  the^verj  moment  when  Ger- 
many cemented  her  national  unity  and  when  every 
country  —  even  Alsace-Lorraine  —  swelled  with  na- 
tional feeling,  Bismarck  pounced  upon  us  and  wrenched 
this  land  away  from  us.  The  year  18Y0  no  longer 
means  the  moving  of  a  boundary  stone  but  the  ampu- 
tation of  a  limb. 

''  In  the  course  of  time  one  may  forgive  the  opponent 
who  knocks  out  a  couple  of  teeth ;  but  he  whose  hand  has 
been  cut  off  is  obliged  to  suffer  the  loss  of  it  all  his  life. 
Let  us  suppose,  for  instance,  that  this  amputated  hand 
retained  its  life  and  feeling  and  could  show  its  silent 
suffering,  and  suppose  the  enemy  was  so  cruel  as  to 
wring  its  fingers  off  before  the  very  eyes  of  the  owner, 
or  to  pull  its  nails  out !  Suppose  that  he  also  cried : 
^  Just  try  to  take  it  back!  We're  seventy  millions  and 
'you  re  only  forty ! ' 

"  Alsace-Lorraine  is  to  France  as  an  amputated  hand, 
and  the  war  is  made  only  because  of  it.  For  thirty 
years  our  alliances,  our  agreements,  our  finances,  our 
repeated  humiliations  —  everything  has  been  subordi- 
nated to  this  one  consideration.  We  felt  it  our 
duty  to  be  patient,  to  suffer  in  silence,  to  lie  low 
until  the  Russian  giant  should  grow  up  and  be  able 
to  say  to  Germany :  ^  Well,  if  you're  seventy  mil- 
lions, I  am  one  hundred  and  fifty  —  now  we'll  see 
some  fun ! ' 


192  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

'^  I  can  prove  that  this  is  the  French  people^s  true 
feeling  toward  the  war. 

"  If  among  German  men  of  culture  —  which  may  be 
defined  as  '  stupid  intelligence ' —  there  had  been  a 
king,  a  statesman,  a  real  diplomat,  even  a  real  successor 
to  Bismarck,  who,  after  we  made  the  alliance  with  Rus- 
sia, had  said  to  us :  ^  I  will  give  you  back  Alsace-Lor- 
raine —  break  the  alliance !  ' —  we  would  have  broken 
it  on  the  spot  and  remained  neutral  under  any  German- 
Russian  or  German-English  clash. 

"  In  exchange  for  Alsace-Lorraine,  Germany  could, 
within  the  last  thirty  years,  have  had  all  our  colonies, 
with  the  exception  of  Algiers,  and  money  to  boot. 

"  At  the  time  of  the  Fashoda  incidents  and  shortly 
thereafter,  Germany  could  have  had  us  as  allies  and 
could  have  crushed  England. 

"  I  even  venture  to  say  that  as  late  as  July,  1914,  the 
offer  of  Alsace-Lorraine  would  have  led  us  to  abandon 
Russia  and  all  our  billions.  Yes,  under  those  condi- 
tions Germany  could  have  taken  the  mouih  of  the  Rhine 
and  Antwerp  without  impressing  us  more  than  she 
did  the  united  States. 

^'  But  ^  stupid  intelligence '  decided  otherwise. 

^^  Wlien  the  Kaiser  at  given  intervals  sent  out  his 
celebrated  dry-powder  ultimatum :  '  I  am  seventy  mil- 
lions —  you  are  only  forty,'  Europe  was  amused, 
grinned  at  our  stupidity,  called  us  imbeciles  and  bluffers 
who  never  could  forget  about  an  amputated  hand.     Yet 


PKOTECTORS  OF  SMALL  :N'ATI0NS      193 

what  could  we  do  but  remain  silent,  be  on  our  guard, 
while  cementing  our  alliance  with  Russia?  If  the 
world  does  not  see  that  during  half  a  year  we  have 
forged  a  war  machine  as  great  as  that  which  it  has  taken 
Germany  thirty  years  to  perfect,  does  not  see  this 
revanche  which  our  science  and  our  nerves  have  taken 
and  developed  while  the  country  is  partially  in  the 
hands  of  the  enemy  —  then  Germany  knows  how  to 
manufacture  very  heavy  blinds ! 

"  Very  sincerely  yours." 

II 

To  this  very  interesting  French  expose  I  should  like 
to  add  a  few  remarks. 

It  is  accepted  as  an  axiom  among  the  men  of  "  Young 
France  "  that  a  reciprocal  fertilisation  of  French  and 
German  mentality  is  impossible.  This  fundamental 
principle  which  M.  Dauville  takes  as  his  starting  point 
is  a  strange  delusion.  The  intellectual  life  of  Alsace 
flatly  contradicts  it.  Alsatian  authors  have  amalga- 
mated French  and  German  qualities  in  French  lan- 
g-uage.  The  same  is  even  true  of  men  of  science.  One 
could,  for  instance,  mention  the  Biblical  student  Reuss, 
professor  of  theology  at  the  University  of  Strassburg, 
Before  1870  he  wrote  in  German,  after  the  war  in 
French  only;  but  German  learning  and  French  form 
combined  to  create  the  unity  of  his  talent.  In  our 
day   French-Swiss   authors   like   Cherbuliez    and   Rod 


194         .        THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

were  influenced  hj  Germany.  Going  back  into  history 
one  might  mention  the  German  descendants  of  the  ex- 
pulsed  Huguenots.  In  Berlin,  especially,  their  ration- 
alism has  a  French  tinge.  Many  of  these  families  with 
French  names  like  Fontane  or  Duhois-Re^Tnond  number 
among  their  ancestors  authors  and  scientists  of  distinctly 
Prussian  patriotism  but  whose  personality  show  traces 
of  French  influence.  An  emigrant  like  Adalbert  von 
Chamisso,  of  pure  French  blood,  wanted  to  be  German 
and  wrote  only  in  German.  He  really  blended  both 
nationalities,  and  French  influence  may  be  detected  in 
other  works  besides  his  masterly  translation  of  French 
poetry  into  German. 

As  a  whole,  French  intellectual  life  of  the  last  cen- 
tury is  not  indebted  to  Germany.  This  is  due  to  the 
immense  cultural  lead  of  France.  As  early  as  the 
twelfth  century  the  stream  of  cultural  influence  ran 
from  France  to  Germany,  but  never  back  to  its  source. 
Authors  of  the  German  epics^  Heinrich  von  Veldeke, 
Hartmann  von  der  Aue,  Gottfried  von  Strassburg,  were 
merely  translators  and  adapters  of  the  French.  Chres- 
tien  de  Troyes  entirely  dominates  Hartmann  von  der 
Aue.  Even  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach  formed  his  taste 
by  the  study  of  Chrestien. 

It  is  not  until  the  nineteenth  century  that  German 
influence  is  felt  in  France,  as  when  Charles  [N'odier  is 
affected  by  Goethe  and  Amadeus  Hoffman,  Alexandre 
Dumas  by  Schiller.     Most  distinctly  may  German  in- 


PKOTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  NATIONS      195 

fluence  be  traced  in  Quinet,  whose  feeling  is  quite  Ger- 
man, and  in  Taine,  who  gathered  knowledge  from  Hegel 
as  from  Goethe,  enjoyed  Heine  and  lived  with  Bee- 
thoven, and  finally  in  Kenan,  who  was  influenced  by 
Herder  and  entirely  saturated  by  German  science  which 
he  has  transposed  into  the  most  perfect  French  form. 
In  our  days,  Eomain  Rolland,  influenced  by  Germany, 
has  shown  the  deepest  understanding  of  German  feeling 
and  character. 

In  the  course  of  a  whole  people's  intellectual  history 
this  tardy  and  scattered  influence  does  not,  of  course, 
amount  to  very  much,  even  if  in  certain  respects,  as  in 
music,  it  has  been  very  evident. 

But  if  one  looks  at  German  cultural  history,  through- 
out the  centuries,  one  finds  proof  of  the  effective  amal- 
gamation of  French  and  German  culture.  Just  as  the 
legends  of  Flore  and  Blancheflore,  Tristan  and  Isolde, 
came  from  France,  so,  later  on,  Rabelais  was  imitated 
by  Fischart,  Gottsched  represented  French  classicism, 
and  Frederick  the  Great,  Voltaire.  For  a  time  Vol- 
taire and  Rousseau  entirely  ruled  German  thought  and 
feeling.  Much  more  recently  Victor  Hugo  influenced 
Freiligrath,  while  Zola  and  Maupassant  have  had  in- 
numerable German  disciples. 

The  differences,  then,  between  the  French  and  Ger- 
man spirit  are  not  greater  than  that  they  may  be  over- 
come. The  attempt  to  account  for  them  by  the  racial 
opposition  —  Latin-German  —  is  almost  amusing,  since 


196^  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

both  French  and  Germans  are  issued  from  a  mixture  of 
races,  and  the  Gauls  were  Celts,  not  Latins.  In  reality, 
there  is  more  German  blood  in  the  French  than  in  the 
Germans  of  to-day. 

The  next  point,  that  in  France  no  one  thought  of  war 
for  economic  reasons,  is  doubtlessly  true.  French  trade 
had  long  ceased  to  rival  Germany^s,  and  its  inferiority 
could  not  have  been  remedied  by  a  war.  Such  desperate 
measures  were  unnecessary,  anyway,  as  French  capital 
increases  by  thrift  and  investment  as  German  capital 
through  business  initiative. 

Regarding  Germany  as  the  hereditary  enemy,  M. 
Danville's  contribution  contains  nothing  new  or  differ- 
ent. More  than  once  I  have  heard,  even  before 
Fashoda,  in  1896,  that  England,  not  Germany,  is  the 
hereditary  enemy  of  France.  These  were  the  very 
words  of  the  celebrated  and  talented  author,  Paul 
Ilervieu,  who  at  that  time  had  just  left  the  diplomatic 
service. 

The  ill-feeling  toward  England  was  clearly  shown  in 
France  in  1898  when  France  was  threatened  and  obliged 
to  give  up  Fashoda:  it  \vas  manifest  throughout  the 
entire  Boer  War,  when  collections  for  the  benefit  of  the 
fighting  Boers  met  with  great  response.  Kruger  was 
hailed  with  enthusiasm,  while  Edward  VII  was  grossly 
caricatured  in  French  journals.  Animosity  was  even 
more  clearly  shown  at  the  World's  Fair  in  1900  when 
Scotch  workingmen,  whom  their  Government  had  sent 


PROTECTORS  OF  SMALL  NATIONS      197 

in  groups  to  see  and  to  study  the  machines  and  the 
wares,  were  so  grossly  insulted  that  they  had  to  leave 
France. 

M.  Dauville  is  right,  of  course,  when  he  explains  why 
France  had  to  buy  the  Russian  alliance  at  any  price. 
And  he  is^alnaost  tragically  right  when  he  states  the 
ignorance  of  the  French  masses  as  to  the  real  govern- 
ment in  Russia,  whose  authority  it  is  now  a  duty  to 
admire.  He  uses  an  especially  lenient  term  in  "  only 
the  violent  Socialists  make  an  exception  to  this  seemly 
attitude."  This  attitude  which  has  dominated  for 
more  than  a  score  of  years  caused  bitter  sorrow  and 
disappointment  among  the  Poles  who  for  a  hundred 
years  had  looked  to  France  as  to  the  nation  that  would 
protect  them  against  Russian  as  well  as  against  Prus- 
sian tyranny.  It  was  French  support  which  main- 
tained Russian  despotism  in  spite  of  desperate  attempts 
at  revolution  made  by  a  desperate  people. 

Great  cordiality  always  existed  between  Prussian  and 
Russian  autocracy;  they  co-operated  if  a  Russian  or  a 
Pole  attempted  to  break  away  from  their  tyranny.  But 
then  French  gold  and  French  enthusiasm  were  brought 
to  strengthen  Russian  bureaucracy  and  to  weave  an 
aureole  of  liberty  around  it.  There  was  world  his- 
torical irony  in  Emperor  Alexander  III  listening  with 
bared  head,  to  the  ^^  Marseillaise,''  played  by  a  Russian 
military  band. 

Even  more  bitterly  ironical  it  was  that  French  de- 


198  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

mocracy  should  become  the  greatest  obstacle  toward 
creating  a  liberal  government  in  Russia. 


Ill 

Both  English  and  French  are  equally  to  blame. 

The  fundamental  cause  of  the  present  war  is  the  oppo- 
sition between  Russia  and  the  Central  Powers,  the 
hatred  between  Slavs  and  Germans,  Russia's  struggle 
with  Austria  for  the  domination  of  the  Balkans. 
France  was  attacked  by  Germany  simply  because  she 
was  an  ally  of  Russia.  Germany  would  have  preferred 
to  fight  it  out  with  Russia  without  war  with  France. 
The  agreement  which  Great  Britain  made  openly  with 
Russia  but  which  was  turned  into  a  military  alliance, 
without  the  knowledge  of  Parliament,  was  an  incal- 
culable obstacle  to  Russian  liberty. 

Russia  depended  and  still  depends  on  the  capital  of 
the  western  states.  She  needs  loans.  She  requires 
credit.  But  if  banks  are  to  be  accommodating,  the  small 
investor  must  have  confidence  in  the  nation  that  wants 
to  borrow.  Ever  since  King  Edward  visited  the  Tzar  in 
Reval  and  the  Tzar  King  Edward  on  the  Isle  of  Wight, 
the  English  papers  chimed  in  the  chorus  to  paint  Rus- 
sia as  a  benevolent  state  in  steady  progress  toward  con- 
stitutional freedom.  Then,  only  did  the  English  in- 
vestor take  his  cheque  book  out.  As  in  France,  the 
press,  politicians,  and  the  upper  classes  conspired  to 


PEOTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  I^ATIONS      199 

praise  the  Russian  Government  and  to  whitewash  its 
character. 

Russia  did  not  seek  England  as  a  liberal  power,  no 
more  than  France  because  she  was  a  republic.  Russia 
had  borrowed  such  immense  sums  from  France,  that, 
after  the  unfortunate  war  with  Japan,  French  financiers 
grew  cautious  and  demanded  English  backing.  And 
Russia,  therefore,  turned  to  England. 

IN'egotiations  were  begun  in  1905  under  Lord  Lans- 
do^vne.  But  his  successor.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  was  the 
man  who  really  carried  them  out,  and  the  alliance  was 
first  drafted  in  the  spring  of  1906. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Russian  people 
obtained  a  constitution  from  the  Tzar  in  October,  1905. 
The  elections  to  the  first  Duma  took  place  amid  great 
excitement,  although  reaction  raged  worse  than  ever  in 
the  provinces.  Yet  a  great  hope  surged  through  the 
Russian  people.  The  new  Duma  showed  an  immense 
radical  majority  and  the  Constitutional  Democrats 
(called  Cadets)  ruled  the  house.  They  had  to  fight  a 
reactionary  ministry  and  a  court  which  regTetted  hav- 
ing been  forced  into  concessions. 

The  Duma  could  have  braved  despotism  if  it  had  been 
able  to  meet  a  bankrupt,  detested  Government,  by  the 
words :  "  Your  safe  is  empty,  your  credit  gone.  We, 
the  leaders  of  new  Russia,  have  the  people  and  Europe 
back  of  us. 

'^  Recognise  our  authority  to  grant  appropriations, 


200  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

introduce  ministerial  responsibility,  and  we  will  vote 
your  taxes  and  agree  to  loans,  as  you  may  wish.  But  if 
you  refuse  us  our  rights,  we  shall  see  that  neither  Paris 
nor  London  finances  your  system  of  oppression." 

The  Duma  could  not  take  this  stand.  In  March, 
1906,  the  immense  loan  had  been  floated  in  London 
and  Paris,  and  when  the  Duma  met  in  May  the  Gov- 
ernment's cash  box  was  full. 

How  the  Liberals  of  Russia  had  begged  the  liberal 
states  in  Europe  not  to  kill  Russian  liberty  by  author- 
ising these  loans ! 

After  less  than  three  months'  life  the  first  Duma  was 
dissolved  and  the  rest  of  the  year  Stolypine  ruled  with- 
out Parliament  while  court-martials  imposed  death  sen- 
tences throughout  the  whole  country.  The  second  Duma 
met  in  1907  and  proved  to  be  even  more  radical  than 
the  first. 

Stolypine  then  accused  the  Social-Democrats,  the 
most  influential  party  in  the  Duma,  of  conspiring 
against  the  Government  to  foment  a  military  revolution. 

A  jury  selected  from  all  parties  unanimously  pro- 
claimed the  Socialists  not  guilty,  and  announced  this 
fact  to  the  third  Duma.  By  a  coup  d'  etat,  thirty-five 
were  then  secretly  tried  by  a  special  court,  seventeen 
were  condemned  to  four  and  five  years'  hard  labour, 
ten  were  exiled  for  life  to  Siberia.  Two  of  them  diefd 
in  prison,  one  lost  his  mind,  a  fourth,  the  leader  of  the 
party,  died  from  consumption.     They  were  all  treated 


PKOTECTORS  OF  SMALL  NATI0:NS     201 

like  prisoners  of  common  law,  put  in  chains  and  flogged. 
The  dissolution  of  the  second  Duma  practically  killed 
Eussian  liberty.  Kropotkin  shows  in  Russian  Terror- 
ism, 1909,  that  the  number  of  political  prisoners  during 
the  ensuing  period  of  nominal  liberty  rose  from  an 
average  of  85,000  in  1905,  to  181,000  in  1909.  He 
shows  the  frightful  diseases  that  raged  within  the  pris- 
ons and  the  frequency  with  which  torture  was  resorted 
to.  In  1909  court-martials  hung  on  an  average  three 
political  convicts  a  day.  The  number  of  political  exiles 
to  Siberia  and  north  Russia  at  that  time  was,  accord- 
ing to  official  figures,  seventy-four  a  day. 

If  there  had  been  no  financial  co-operation  between 
France,  England,  and  the  Russian  Government,  such 
conditions  could  not  have  existed. 

Tragic  words  are  spoken  to  cast  dust  in  the  eyes  of 
the  public.  Among  these,  the  phrase,  "  The  Alliance 
with  France  and  England  is  transforming  Russia  into 
a  liberal  power  fighting  for  liberty,"  is  one  of  the  most 
tragic.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  celebrated  Rus- 
sian revolutionary,  Burtzef,  convinced  that  Russia  was 
growing  liberal,  placed  himself  at  the  Government's 
disposal.  To  show  he  was  willing  to  back  up  his  state- 
ments by  his  actions,  he  went  to  Russia.  ~Ro  sooner 
had  he  crossed  the  border  than  he  was  arrested  and 
exiled  to  Siberia  for  life.  During  the  war  reaction  has 
set  in  much  more  violently  than  before.  Although  the 
members  of  the  Duma  are  inviolable  by  law,  five  Social- 


202  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Democrats  were  imprisoned  on  the  charge  of  treason. 
One  of  these,  Adamovitsj,  was  sentenced  to  hard  labour 
for  life  because  he  organised  a  syndicate  among  sailors. 

IV 

The  next  and  most  decisive  point  in  M.  Danville's 
explanation  is  the  Alsace-Lorraine  question.  He  dwells 
on  the  feeling  of  France  for  these  provinces,  on  the 
great  sorrow  and  humiliation  felt  by  France  at  losing 
them,  her  suffering  at  witnessing  their  torture  and  her 
irresistible  longing  to  get  them  back.  She  was  willing 
to  pay  any  price  for  their  restitution  —  colonies  or 
costly  alliances.  To  win  these  provinces  back  was 
France's  only  object  in  entering  the  war.  As  a  term 
of  comparison  he  uses  an  amputated  hand. 

The  comparison  does  not  seem  very  apt,  since  it  would 
be  impossible  after  a  time  —  or  even  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  amputation  —  to  make  a  hand  grow  on  the 
wrist  from  which  it  had  been  cut,  but  the  term  of 
comparison  is,  on  the  whole,  of  slight  importance.  But 
what  is  more  incomprehensible  is  that  an  educated 
Frenchman,  one  who  thinks  in  political  terms,  should 
be  so  ignorant  of  Danish  history  as  to  try  to  explain 
how  a  country^  suffers  when  its  provinces  are  torn  away. 
He  evidently  never  thought  of  Denmark's  present  posi- 
tion in  Xorth  Schleswig.  ISTeither  does  he  know,  ap- 
parently, how  cruelly  a  nation  suffers  when  provinces 
which  historically  and  linguistically  belong  to  it  are 


PROTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  :NATI0NS      208 

wrested  away.  While  Alsace  grew  French  under  Louis 
XIV,  Schleswig  has  been  Danish  from  the  Saga  days. 
We  all  know  that  the  French  are  more  familiar  with 
the  history  of  their  own  country  than  that  of  other  coun- 
tries, but  such  ignorance  is  surprising. 

M.  Dauville  is  in  the  wrong  regarding  an  incidental 
remark  on  the  restitution  of  Alsace-Lorraine.  That  is 
where  he  says,  "  Bismarck  pounced  upon  us."  Bis- 
marck was  not  responsible  for  the  annexation  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  just  as  he  was  not  to  blame  for  Denmark's 
loss  of  North  Schleswig.  As  his  now  forgotten  letter 
to  Blixen-Finecke  proves,  his  intention  was  to  settle  the 
questions  of  the  Duchies  (Schleswig)  without  war,  so 
that  Denmark  should  not  lose  any  of  her  Danish-speak- 
ing population,  if  Blixen-Finecke  became  minister  of 
foreign  affairs.  Even  at  the  London  Conference  Den- 
mark could  have  had  North  Schleswig,  if  in  the  hope  of 
obtaining  better  terms  she  had  not  refused  to  compro- 
mise. As  for  Alsace-Lorraine,  after  the  Franco-Prus- 
sian War,  Bismarck  opposed  the  imperialistic  tendencies 
of  Moltke  and  the  war  party  as  he  did  after  Austria's 
defeat. 

At  the  Prague  Conference  he  succeeded  in  enforcing 
his  will  so  that  no  part  of  Austria  or  of  Bavaria  became 
Prussian.  After  the  Franco-Prussian  War  he  asserted 
that  the  annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  would  lead  to 
another  war  within  fifty  years  or  so.  But  he  was  un- 
able to  win  the  Kaiser  over  to  his  side  for  Moltke  and 


204  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

the  military  leaders  argued  vociferously  that  the  pen 
must  not  be  allowed  to  give  the  enemy  what  the  sword 
had  won. 

The  loss  of  Alsace-Lorraine  was  not  merely  felt  with 
sorrow  and  grief,  but  it  seemed  symbolic  of  France  re- 
duced to  a  second  rank  power.  M.  Dauville,  however, 
does  not  refer  to  the  extensive  colonies  which  France 
has  acquired  since  1870  and  which  have  somewhat  made 
up  for  this  loss,  so  that  the  younger  generation  feels  the 
deep  wound  of  Alsace  more  as  a  scar  than  anything  else. 

An  enquiry  conducted  by  the  Mercure  de  France  in 
1898  is  interesting.  It  proved  that  only  those  who 
were  of  age  in  1870  and  ^vho  took  part  in  the  war  feel 
the  loss  of  the  provinces  as  an  unhealable  wound. 

The  distinguished  French  thinker,  Clemence  Roteb, 
the  translator  of  Darwin,  wrote  at  the  time: 

"  Alsace  and  Lorraine  were  taken  away  from  us,  as 
we  took  them,  by  force.  We  may  take  them  back  again. 
They  will  then  again  be  taken  away  from  us.  What  do 
the  provinces  gain  by  this,  except  to  be  ravaged  again 
and  again  by  war !  And  can  we  really  claim  that  they 
should  belong  to  us  because  of  race  or  tradition? 
Since  the  days  of  the  Eomans,  Alsace  has  been  German. 
It  was  not  even  inhabited  by  the  Franks.  Under  the 
Merovingien  kings  it  was  part  of  Allemania  or  Schwabia 
whose  language  it  has  kept  to  this  day.'' 

G.  MoNTEEGUEii.:  "The  day  after  defeat  revenge 
is  a  beautiful  and  noble  thought  —  it  rouses  to  energy. 


PROTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  ISTATIONS     205 

After  a  quarter  of  a  century,  an  offensive  attitude  is  a 
pose,  ridiculous  rather  than  great.  A  few  madmen  may 
conceive  of  making  war  to  win  back  Alsace-Lorraine, 
and  many  hypocrites  may  demand  it.  But  the  people 
do  not  want  it;  they  w^ould  have  expressed  their  opin- 
ion openly  on  their  subject,  if  they  had  dared.  Yet 
they  hint  at  that  which  they  do  not  say  openly." 

The  young  authors  of  the  day  advanced  startling 
opinions.  The  Brothers  Paul  and  Victor  Margueritte, 
whose  father  had  been  mortally  wounded  at  Sedan, 
(Paul  Margueritte  recently  published  a  passionate  war 
volume :  Contre  les  Barhares)  said :  "  They  who  have 
lived  through  the  feverish  days  of  the  war  will  always 
remember  them ;  but  others  will  forget  them.  One  may 
foresee  the  day  when  the  names  Sedan  and  Metz  will 
not  stir  us  any  more  or  differently  than  Waterloo,  or 
the  Allies'  march  into  Paris  in  1814." 

Ferdiis^and  Hekold  :  "  A  revolution  in  Alsace 
against  Germany,  or  something  equally  unreasonable, 
would  be  needed  to  cause  a  Franco-German  War.  And 
even  then  how  could  the  French  Government  logically 
interfere,  since  it  has  recognised  Abdul  Hamid  in  Ar- 
menia and  the  Spanish  Regent  in  Cuba  ?  " 

Feancis  Jainimes  (at  that  time  a  highly  esteemed 
lyi-ical  poet)  :  "  Xot  a  single  French  peasant  dreams  of 
reconquering  Alsace.  The  bourgeois  does  not  want  to 
fight.  Artists  would  only  be  disturbed  by  w^ar.  The 
only  one  who  would  welcome  war  is  the  exhausted,  con- 


206  THE  WORLD  AT  WAK 

sumptive,  and  alcoholic  labourer  who  ambles  along  in 
the  chilly  dawn  to  the  factory  where  the  demands  of 
capitalists,  the  foreman's  abuse,  and  fall  from  scaf- 
foldings await  him." 

Ais'DBE  Lebey  :  ^'  We  were  beaten,  after  we  our- 
selves had  declared  war,  and  were  obliged  to  submit  to 
the  demands  of  the  victors.  One  replies  immediately 
to  a  thrashing.  The  following  day  is  too  late.  We  al- 
ways think  of  Alsace ;  we  often  weep  about  it ;  at  dessert 
we  solemnly  drink  to  its  honour;  at  fetes  we  enjoy 
adorning  our  lyrical  speeches  with  black  crepe  bands. 
But  that  is  all.'' 

Remy  de  Goubmont  (one  of  the  founders  of  the 
Mercure  de  France,  a  highly  esteemed  poet  and  writer)  : 
^'  A  reconciliation  is  inevitable.  The  German  is  no 
longer  the  enemy.  The  stupidity  of  calling  Germany 
the  hereditary  enemy  is  only  seen  in  papers  playing  for 
public  favour.  But  public  favour  does  not  meet  them 
half  way." 

Camille  Mauclair  (highly  appreciated  author  and 
journalist)  :  ''  Revanche  is  campaign  material  for  elec- 
tions, only. — 

^'  It  lost  out  when  Boulangism  failed  because  of  its 
incapable  leaders  and  of  its  general's  indecision.  As 
far  as  we  writers  are  concerned,  we  have  been  repulsed 
by  the  stupid  literature  to  which  nationalism  has  given 
birth." 

Henri  de  Regnier  (now  the  recognised  leader  of  the 


PKOTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  ]SrATIO:N^S      307 

younger  school  of  poets,  member  of  the  Academie)  : 
"  I  believe  the  question  of  Alsace-Lorraine  is  a  matter 
of  national  pride.  Germany's  annexation  of  the  two 
provinces  seems  a  symbol  of  our  momentary  inferior- 
ity. That  is  why  it  galls  us.  If  our  national  pride 
could  be  redeemed  in  other  ways,  the  wound  would  heal 
even  if  we  did  not  win  the  lost  provinces  back." 

Even  seventeen  years  ago  these  sentiments  did  not 
surprise  any  one  who  had  followed  the  evolution  of 
French  mentality.  In  Le  Journal  (22  July,  1898)  the 
popular  and  highly  esteemed  author,  Frangois  Coppee, 
told  of  the  havoc  caused  by  a  series  of  storms  in  Alsace. 
He  appealed  eloquently  to  the  French  people's  fellow- 
feeling  and  opened  up  a  subscription,  ^ot  a  single 
contribution  was  made.  The  Mercure  de  France  tried 
to  find  out  why  Coppee's  patriotic  appeal  had  been  such 
a  dismal  failure.  At  that  time  (the  Fashoda  year)  the 
hatred  for  England  was  so  intense  in  France  that  Ger- 
many was  almost  forgotten,  and  I  made  practically  the 
same  remark  as  M.  Dauville  now,  namely,  that  "  not 
Germany,  but  England,  is  the  hereditary  enemy  of 
France."  Anglo-French  rivalry  in  France  and  Asia 
and  the  conditions  in  Egypt  and  at  the  Niger  inflamed 
France's  resentment  for  England.  At  that  time,  the 
working  classes,  whether  they  were  socialistic  or  anarch- 
istic, would  hear  nothing  of  national  hatred  for  Ger- 
many but  looked  upon  the  German  working  people  aa 
brothers.     I    wrote :     "  Enthusiasm    for    Germany    is 


208  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

often  found  among  French  intellectuals.  Richard 
Wagner,  who  is  discussed  more  passionately  in  France 
than  in  any  other  country,  has  done  much  to  spread 
German  influence.  Rather  remarkable  is  the  tendency 
among  certain  of  the  younger  generation,  to  learn  and 
speak  German." 

In  writing  the  last  sentence  I  thought  of  Leon  Daudet 
(now  the  most  rabid  chauvinist  in  France),  who,  a  few 
years  before,  in  his  father's  house,  always  seized  every 
occasion  to  speak  German.  He  often  spoke  German  to 
me  and  I  replied  in  French.  Now  he  accuses  me  of 
not  being  sufficiently  French. 

During  the  Dreyfus  affair  and  the  ensuing  acute  in- 
ternal struggle  when  bellicose  "  nationalism  "  was  ap- 
parently ousted,  revanche  lost  favour  and  most  French- 
men looked  upon  the  nationalistic  spokesman,  Paul 
Deroulede,  as  a  sort  of  semi-comical  figure.  Not  until 
after  his  death  did  he  become  a  national  hero. 

Only  in  recent  years  did  intellectual  circles  gain  con- 
fidence in  the  army.  And  with  confidence  came  the 
idea  of  reconquering  the  lost  provinces.  It  soon  began 
to  shine  as  a  duty. 


That  exalted  national  feeling  is  not  exclusively  on 
the  German  side  is  shown  by  the  May  number  of  the 
Mercure  de  France.  In  it  M.  Leon  Bloy  has  an  article 
on  "  Jeanne  d'Arc  and  Germany."     Public  opinion  all 


PROTECTOKS  OF  SMALL  ISTATIONS      209 

over  the  world  has  been  incensed  at  Germany's  assump- 
tion that  German  culture  and  civilisation  are  higher 
than  other  civilisations.  But  has  any  German  writer 
gone  further  than  M.  Bloy  in  the  following  words  about 
France  ? 

He  says,  for  instance: 

"  After  Israel  who  were  called  God's  people  by  spe- 
cial favour,  God  has  loved  no  nation  on  earth  as  much 
as  France.  Explain  it  whoever  can.  To  call  this  na- 
tion the  most  noble  of  all  nations  —  which  it  undoubt- 
edly is  —  serves  no  purpose,  since  such  divine  preroga- 
tives are  the  reward  of  the  chosen  one.  God's  predilec- 
tion can  only  be  explained  by  His  good  pleasure  which 
cannot  be  understood  but  which  must  be  worshipped. 
France  is  so  far  ahead  of  all  other  peoples  that,  no  mat- 
ter who  they  be,  they  should  feel  honoured  at  being 
allowed  to  eat  the  crumbs  destined  for  her  dogs. 

"  A  whole,  homogeneous  France  whose  geography  has 
remained  unchanged  for  three  hundred  years  is  neces- 
sary to  God  because  otherwise  He  would  not  exist  and 
He  would  not  be  completely  God.  No  matter  what 
crimes  or  sins  of  faithlessness  France  may  have  com- 
mitted, God  will  never  allow  her  to  be  crushed  as  He 
needs  her  for  His  own  glory,  and  the  foul  Lutherans 
who  mutilated  her  half  a  century  ago  will  be  punished 
with  inconceivable  severity." 

Few  German  professors  in  their  insane  pride  have 
gone  to  such  extreme  as  to  say  that  the  nations  of  Eu- 


210  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

rope  should  be  grateful  and  feel  honoured  at  sharing 
their  bread  with  Germany's  dogs. 

I^ations  in  our  days  may  have  much  to  pride  them- 
selves on  and  little  to  boast  of.  Yet  each  one  is  con- 
vinced it  is  the  most  wonderful  people  in  Europe  and  if 
God  is  God,  He  must  grant  that  particular  nation  vic- 
tory. If  He  does  not  do  so  immediately,  this  is  be- 
cause He  must  first  chastise,  like  the  great  and  kind 
Father  He  is.  Seen  with  French  glasses.  He  hates 
German  barbarism,  seen  by  German  eyes  He  favours 
German  culture  and  guards  especially  the  house  of 
Hohenzollem.  Both  France  and  Germany  are  certain 
that  they  are  His  chosen  peoples,  the  incarnations  of 
His  being  on  earth.  If  He  were  to  fail  them  He  would 
go  against  His  own  nature,  arouse  doubts  as  to  His 
almightiness  or  even  as  to  His  existence.  But  as  even 
the  Almighty  cannot  favour  both  sides  at  the  same  time. 
He  must,  at  the  present  moment,  hear  from  both  sides 
cries  which  pass  from  bitter  complaints  to  impudent 
attacks. 

An  ordinary  mortal  should,  therefore,  not  feel  hurt 
when  he,  a  mere  human,  is  attacked  or  misunderstood 
by  the  belligerents.  Yet  it  is  his  right  to  explain  his 
attitude  and  to  show  how  unjust  are  their  attacks,  or 
rather  how  unfounded.  After  II.  Clemengeau  in  a 
most  injurious  way  had  cut  short  his  polemics  with  me 
(which  he  himself  began)  the  paper  Le  Temps  re- 
printed his  conclusion  and  added  in  an  irritated  article 


PKOTECTORS  OF  SMALL  :N^ATI0:^S     211 

that  my  "  personality  lacked  logical  sequence.'^  I  have 
not  been  able  to  find  a  copy  of  this  article;  but  the 
Mercure  de  France  which  inspired  M.  Danville  to  write 
me  quotes  the  Temps  as  "  complaining  that  I  have 
^  neither  love  of  truth  nor  the  courage  to  express  it.'  " 
To  this  quotation  the  Mercure  adds  the  following  words : 
"  If  newspaper  attacks  sufiiced  to  make  him  an  enemy 
of  France,  this  was  the  best  possible  way  of  doing  it.'' 

My  love  for  France  is  far  too  deep  to  be  affected  by 
this  stupid  clamour ;  yet  it  is  rather  hard  and  quite  un- 
fair that  the  reward  of  a  lifelong  enthusiasm  for  a  coun- 
try as  proved  in  actions  and  evidenced  in  an  imusual 
understanding  of  that  country,  should  be  to  find  oneself 
held  up  to  the  masses  of  that  people  (who  have  no  means 
of  ascertaining  the  truth)  as  an  object  of  hatred  and 
scorn.  And  this  by  personal,  trusted  friends  because 
of  sincere  convictions,  misinterpreted  as  to  mean  the  op- 
posite of  what  they  really  do. 

Although  Mercure  de  France  s  good  feeling  for  me 
is  conditional  and  it  quite  incorrectly  remarks  that  I 
have  written  more  about  Germany  than  about  France 
and  England,  I  am  grateful  for  its  intention  and  its  at- 
tempt to  understand.  Still  more  grateful  am  I  to  M. 
Edouard  Herriot,  the  mayor  of  Lyons,  because  he  re- 
marked that  in  this  critical  period  I  have  neither  been 
untrue  to  myself  nor  to  my  ideals. 

When  the  representatives  of  the  European  press  some 
time  ago  visited  Denmark,  they  grasped  each  others' 


212  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

hands  and  danced  in  a  circle  around  M.  Alberti/  at 
Skotsborg,  while  the  assembled  members  of  the  "  world's 
press  "  joined  in  the  chorus  of  ''  He  is  a  jolly  good 
fellow."  This  was  sjTabolic.  Then,  as  always,  the 
world's  press  displayed  the  psychological  insight  which, 
in  praise  as  well  as  in  blame,  it  reveals  when  dealing 
with  ^Rorthem  personalities  and  conditions. 

1  M.  Alberti,  a  former  Danish  minister  of  finances,  was  accused 
and  convicted  of  a  multimillion  defalcation. 


AX  APPEAL 

(May,  1916) 

Each  of  the  Great  Powers  declares  the  war  it  is 
waging  is  a  war  of  defence.  They  have  all  been  at- 
tacked; they  are  all  fighting  for  their  existence.  For 
all  of  them  murder  and  lies  are  necessary  means  of 
defence.  But  since  none  of  the  Powers,  by  their  own 
showing,  wanted  war,  let  them  make  peace ! 

After  twenty-two  months'  war,  however,  peace  seems 
farther  off  than  ever.  The  fighting  nations  each  and 
all  must  first  win  the  victory  of  civilisation  over  bar- 
barism —  and  call  civilisation  their  conception  of 
higher  culture,  right,  justice,  or  democracy  as  opposed 
to  militarism. 

Civilisation!  The  first  fruit  of  this  civilisation  has 
been  to  spread  over  the  earth  the  truth-killing  Eussian 
censorship.  The  second  is  that  we  have  come  back  to 
the  days  of  human  sacrifice.  With  this  difference,  how- 
ever, that  in  the  barbarous  days  of  ancient  history  four 
or  five  prisoners  of  war  were  offered  each  year  to  please 
a  much  feared  divinity,  whereas  now  four  or  five  mil- 
lions are  sacrificed  to  the  fetiches  of  the  day. 

Lamennais  once  ^vrote :  "  Satan  inspired  the  op- 
pressors of  mankind  with  a  fiendish  thought.     He  said 

213 


214  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

to  them :  In  each  family  take  the  strongest  and  bravest 
men  and  give  them  arms !  Then  I  shall  give  them  two 
idols  called  honour  and  loyalty,  and  one  law,  which  they 
shall  call  obedience  to  duty.  They  shall  worship  these 
idols  and  blindly  obey  this  law.'^ 

When  we  consider  the  present  war  to  crush  mili- 
tarism we  find  that  it  has  brought  military  compulsion 
to  the  only  country  which  had  hitherto  remained  free 
from  it,  and  while  militarism  is  being  fought  on  the 
battle-field,  civilian  rule  is  being  replaced  everywhere  by 
the  military,  or  flouted  by  it. 

We  follow  this  fight  for  freedom  during  which  every 
shipload,  every  cargo  is  inspected  or  destroyed  by  the  de- 
fenders of  liberty  as  well  as  by  the  worshippers  of 
might ;  every  letter  is  opened,  even  personal  letters  be- 
tween neutrals. 

We  follow  the  struggle  for  a  higher  civilisation,  dur- 
ing which  Germany  has  crushed  Belgium,  Austria-Hun- 
gary, Servda;  England,  Greece;  Russia,  East  Prussia 
and  Poland :  this  fight  for  right  in  which  right  is  every- 
where flouted  and  the  interests  of  the  governments  alone 
considered  —  this  fight  for  the  independence  of  small 
states  in  which  that  independence  is  on  both  sides  in- 
fringed, disregarded,  abolished. 

In  belligerent  countries  the  armies  first  of  all  want 
victory,  but  secondly  they  long  for  peace.  The  civilian 
population  everywhere  sighs  for  peace.  But  the  gov- 
ernments, clinging  desperately  to  their  seats,  dig  their 


AK  APPEAL  215 

spurs  into  the  flanks  of  the  exhausted  steed,  and  race 
madly  on. 

The  desire  for  peace  is  not  allowed  to  find  outlet. 

In  neutral  countries  public  opinion  does  not  consider 
it  seemly  to  discuss  peace.  Public  opinion  is  usually 
on  the  level  of  the  shop  girl  who  ^^  sympathises  "  with 
one  side  or  the  other  and  thereby  forgets  to  add  her  bit 
to  the  scale  of  justice. 

Among  neutrals,  one  power  has  more  influence  than 
all  the  others  combined.  Do  the  United  States  of 
America  mean  only  to  profit  by  the  war  instead  of  using 
their  influence  tq  further  peace  ?  Is  there,  in  short,  no 
one  who  believes  in  peace,  in  common  sense,  and  in 
sound  judgment  ? 

The  cry  for  peace  that  will  soon  rise  from  belligerent 
coimtries  is  called  cowardly.  But  if  mankind  remains 
silent,  the  stones  will  cry.  The  ruins  everywhere  call 
for  peace,  not  revenge.  And  where  stones  are  silent, 
fields  and  meadows  cry,  watered  with  blood,  fertilised 
with  the  dead. 

The  whole  world  is  in  the  throes  of  malicious  joy. 
The  only  satisfaction  is  to  hurt  others,  in  self-defence. 
Ships  are  torpedoed  "  successfully."  Bombardments 
have  "  excellent  results."  One  man  brings  down  his 
twentieth  aeroplane.  And  there  is  rejoicing.  If  any 
one  asks,  "  How  can  you  rejoice  ? "  the.  answer  is  the 
phrase  hypocritically  stamped  as  Jesuitical,  as  devilish, 
"  The  end  justifies  the  means." 


216  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

Cruelty  has  become  a  duty;  compassion  is  treachery. 

The  Germans  suffer  hunger  and  privations.  The 
Allies  rejoice.  Belgium  and  Serbia  are  crushed. 
Germans  and  Austrians  rejoice.  The  Poles  are  starv- 
ing, the  Jews  are  inexpressibly  wretched.  The  belliger- 
ents are  unable  to  alleviate  the  misery. 

All  of  the  belligerents  are  proud  of  the  "  daring  cour- 
age and  the  heroic  resistance "  of  their  men.  Both 
sides  claim  that  among  their  opponents  the  barest  in- 
stincts have  broken  loose,  and  both  sides  are  unfortu- 
nately right. 

The  Central  Powers  say  they  want  peace.  But  they 
do  not  seem  willing  to  make  any  real  compromise  to  ob- 
tain it.  Their  object  is  to  cripple  their  enemies  so  that 
*'  peace  may  be  lasting." 

The  Allies  w^ill  not  hear  of  peace  until  the  "  de- 
cisive victory  "  has  been  won,  i.e.,  before  they  have  ob- 
tained what  they  for  nearly  two  years  have  been  fight- 
ing for  fruitlessly,  and  to  which  they  seem  no  nearer. 
They  too  want  to  crush  their  enemies  before  they  will 
discuss  peace. 

Whatever  happens,  no  matter  how  great  the  battles 
won,  how  valuable  the  ships  sunk,  how  costly  the  air- 
craft destroyed,  how  many  belligerents  are  massacred, 
one  thing  is  sure:  Everything  must  end  in  an  armis- 
tice and  in  peace  negotiations. 

Why  not,  then,  discuss  those  conditions  now  ?  What 
is  to  be  gained  by  continuing  the  slaughter  ?     Peace  is 


AN  APPEAL  21Y 

a  sibyl  whose  books,  i.e.,  whose  treasures,  must  be 
bought,  and  they  become  dearer  and  rarer  for  every 
day  that  goes. 

We  are  all  acquainted  with  the  phrase.  "  We  must 
first  crush  the  enemy." 

But  the  enemy  cannot  be  crushed  —  all  that  is  gained 
is  wholesale  murder.  Neither  of  Ihe  fighthig  groups 
can  he  crushed. 

And  when  people  declare  they  do  not  wish  to  crush 
Germany  but  only  its  militarism,  it  is  as  if  one  were  to 
say,  "  I  don't  want  to  hurt  the  porcupine  but  only  to 
pull  out  its  quills." 

Both  parties  intend  to  fight  "  until  the  bitter  end." 
Every  day  it  becomes  more  bitter.  What  may  be 
gained  by  postponing  peace  negotiations  is  lost  by  pro- 
longing the  war. 

Has  humanity  forgotten  that  there  are  other  means 
of  settling  human  disputes  than  by  resorting  to  bombs 
and  grenades? 

How  will  future  generations  judge  us?  They  will 
say:  In  those  days,  in  all  Europe,  there  was  not  a 
single  statesman  worthy  of  the  name.  Had  there  been 
one  statesman  on  each  side  before  the  war,  it  would 
never  have  broken  out.  Had  there  been  one  statesman 
on  either  side,  it  would  not  have  lasted  a  year.  Gen- 
erals have  superseded  statesmen. 

The  future  will  say:  That  was  a  time  when  wars 
of  religion  were  called  barbarous  while  no  one  seemed 


218  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

to  realise  that  wars  of  nationality  are  worse.  That  was 
a  time  when  cabinet  wars  were  considered  old-fashioned, 
while  no  one  understood  that  trade  wars  are  even  more 
brutal.  In  the  history  of  humanity  the  wars  of  re- 
ligion are  a  frightful  farce.  In  the  history  of  the  world 
this  war  is  an  appalling  tragedy. 

It  would  be  best  if  the  war  were  to  end  without  either 
side  being  too  deeply  humiliated.  Otherwisf^  the  humil- 
iated party  will  think  of  nothing  but  revenge.  And  it 
must  be  remembered  that  humiliation  inflicted  on  the 
enemy  does  not  replace  a  single  human  life. 

Each  human  life  represents  a  value.  Mankind  is  not 
alike.  There  is  slight  consolation  in  the  fact  that  our 
losses  were  one  thousand,  and  the  enemy's  ten. 

Who  knows  if  among  those  one  thousand  there  was 
not  a  man  who  would  have  been  the  honour  of  his 
country,  the  benefactor  of  humanity  throughout  the 
centuries  ? 

There  may  have  been  a  Shakespeare  or  a  Xewton,  a 
Kant  or  a  Goethe,  a  Moliere  or  a  Pasteur,  a  Copernicus, 
a  Rubens,  a  Tolstoi  among  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
twenty-year-old  English,  French,  German,  Polish,  Bel- 
gian, or  Russian  soldiers  who  have  fallen. 

What  does  a  slight  change  in  the  boundary  Hue  mean 
in  comparison  to  the  loss  of  such  a  personality?  The 
gain  is  temporary;  the  loss  is  irretrievable.  The  gain 
is  that  of  one  country ;  the  loss  is  humanity's. 

Every  one  can  calculate  how  war  destroys  the  na- 


A:N^  appeal  219 

tions'  wealth,  how  their  capital  dwindles  until  no  one 
will  be  able  to  pay  tlie  war  indemnities.  But  the  loss 
in  human  values,  liie  gr  -atest  loss  of  all,  is  never  cal- 
culated. 

We  see  the  white  race  destroying  its  prestige  in  the 
eyes  of  the  black,  brown  and  yellow  races.  It  has  called 
upon  their  aid  and  has  rewarded  them  for  murdering 
the  whites.     How  can  this  but  avenge  itself  ^ 

Europe  is  committing  harirhari  for  the  benefit  of 
Japan,  and  the  adaptable  and  clever  Asiatic  people, 
with  an  eye  on  the  future,  undoubtedly  look  upon  Eu- 
rope's suicidal  mania  with  considerable  astonishment 
and  not  little  satisfaction. 

The  press,  in  belligerent  countries,  has  taken  upon 
itself  to  excite  hatred  against  the  enemy  in  order  to 
create  war  enthusiasm.  It  should  remember  that  the 
destroying  hatred  it  calls  into  existence  will  live  long 
after  the  war,  and  will  inevitably  give  birth  to  new 
wars.  The  longer  the  war  lasts,  the  shorter  the  coming 
peace  will  be. 


IDEALS  OR  POLITICS  ? 
(June,  1916) 

Reply  to  Me.  Aecher 

Dear  Mr.  William  Archer: 

First  of  all  let  me  thank  you  for  the  way  in  which 
you  have  phrased  your  letter  to  me.  It  proves  that  even 
if  we  may  differ  in  regard  to  certain  matters,  there  is 
no  breach  in  our  more  than  twenty-year-old  friendship. 
I  am  indebted  to  you  for  much  infonnation  and  teach- 
ing. I  have  always  valued  your  judgment,  and  the  ad- 
miration inspired  by  your  entirely  "  whole  "  character 
has  not  been  shaken  by  your  open  letter  to  me. 

Allow  me  to  explain  my  views  quietly  and  dispas- 
sionately, for  even  though  you  know  me  well,  you  seem 
to  have  misunderstood  them.  But  let  me  first  heave  a 
sigh  at  meeting  so  little  understanding,  not  only  in 
Germany,  where  I  was  first  attacked,  but  in  France, 
Russia,  and  England,  where  the  attacks  have  been  re- 
peated and  exaggerated.  I  have  —  because  of  a  certain 
ethos  without  pathos  —  entirely  failed  to  ingratiate  my- 
self with  any  of  the  belligerents. 

From  the  sixteenth  to  the  eighteenth  centuries 
thinkers  and  philosophers  made  it  a  point  of  honour  to 
seek  truth  irrespective  of  national  prejudice  and  passion 

220 


IDEALS  OR  POLITICS?  221 

and  without  allowing  themselves  to  be  biased  by  their 
environment.  For  even  in  the  days  of  the  Renaissance 
and  the  Reformation  every  war  was  understood  to  be  a 
war  between  right  and  wrong,  between  truth  and  false- 
hood. Each  of  the  belligerents,  then  as  now,  looked 
upon  his  side  as  the  only  just  one. 

In  Oehlenschläger's  Aladdin  the  following  lines  occur 
before  Aladdin's  struggle  with  Sinbad : 

"  Aladdin !     Heavens !     What  is  it  you're  daring  ?  " 
"  Truth  against  falsehood  —  good  against  evil !  " 

The  last  line  applies  equally  to  the  belligerents  of  to- 
day. Both  sides  look  upon  the  war  as  a  holy  war. 
Definite  sides  must  be  taken  in  it.  The  right  is  entirely 
with  the  fatherland  —  the  wrong  with  the  enemy. 

Both  sides  prove  this  by  culling  from  the  ac- 
cumulated and  exceedingly  complex  entanglement  of 
events  and  actions,  one  single  factor.  This  is  set  up 
as  typical  and  made  the  basis  of  argument. 

From  out  the  complex  world  war  England  at  the 
beginning  seized  the  moment  when  the  wrong  undoubt- 
edly was  on  Germany's  side;  i.e.,  when  Belgium  was 
invaded.  From  the  brutal  attack  on  a  brave,  unfortu- 
nate little  nation  a  general  conclusion  was  dravni  to 
prove  that  England  and  her  Allies  were  fighting  for  the 
sacredness  of  treaties  and  for  the  rights  of  small  nations 
and  for  these  high  ideals  alone. 

On  their  side  the  Germans,  however,  also  began  an 


222  THE  WORLD  AT  W.^ 

intellectual  campaign.  They  first  considered  the  viola- 
tion of  Belgium  a  '^  regrettable  "  necessity ;  later  on,  be- 
cause of  old,  fruitless  discussions  between  England  and 
Belgium,  during  which  an  English  officer  had  made  a 
few  unguarded  statements,  the  Germans  were  led  to  be- 
lieve that  England  would  not  have  hesitated  to  land 
troops  in  Belgium  if  this  had  been  to  her  advantage. 
Germany's  action  was  tlierehy  ju^tJtied  in  the  people's 
eyes. 

One  would  have  thought  that  every  thinking  and 
high-minded  person  in  Germany  Avould  shrink  with 
shame  at  German  brutality  and  German  atrocities  in 
Belgium.  But  no ;  if  men  are  to  murder  and  mutilate 
each  other  they  must  first  be  convinced  of  the  enemy's 
baseness.  That  is  why  national  hatred  is  stirred  up. 
Belgians  had  defended  themselves,  -^-^^  in  the  fray 
civilians  had  once  or  t^vice  sh^^t  at  üje  German  troops. 
This  perfectly  natural  action  was  hailed  by  the  Ger- 
mans as  inconceivable  and  reprehensible.  In  self-de- 
fence the  Germans  made  a  series  of  awful  retaliations, 
and  to  justify  their  atrocities  said  the  Belgians  put  the 
eyes  out  of  wounded  Germans,  cut  their  hands  off  — 
were  so  inhimaan,  in  sh(>rt,  that  no  punishment  could  be 
too  severe. 

That  was  how  it  happened  that  the  very  things 
which  made  neutrals  look  upon  the  campaign  as  an  out- 
rageous invasion  did  not  awaken  the  slightest  qualm 
in  the  German  conscience. 


IDEALS  OK  POLITICS?  223 

At  first,  Germany  considered  Russia  the  real  enemy. 
The  German  Government  reminded  the  people  how  the 
Finnish  constitution  had  been  broken,  how  Russia  for 
years  had  oppressed  Poland,  annihilated  Persia,  and  as 
the  Germans  on  the  whole  undoubtedly  are  far  superior 
to  the  Russians  in  reading  and  writing,  in  order,  bureau- 
cratic integrity,  cleanliness  and  education  as  well  as  in 
agriculture,  trade  and  industry,  they  became  unshake- 
ably  convinced  that  in  this  war  they  represented  civilisa- 
tion against  barbarism  —  yes,  even  that  they  were  car- 
rying on  a  sort  of  war  for  the  liberty  of  the  small  na- 
tions —  for  the  Jews  whom  Russia  crowds  into  Ghettos, 
for  the  Finns  whose  rights  Russia  has  trampled  on, 
for  the  Poles  and  the  Baits  whom  she  oppresses,  for 
the  Georgians,  the  Ukrainians,  the  White  Russians 
whom  she  brutalises.  As  the  English  declared  their 
intention  was  to  crush  Prussian  militarism,  so  the  Ger- 
mans went  to  the  front  to  destroy  Tzarism  and  mili- 
tarism as  expressed  by  the  Tzar. 

As  the  English  took  a  single  fact  —  the  invasion  of 
Belgium  —  out  of  the  maze  of  historical  events,  so  the 
Germans  seized  the  war  with  Russia.  And  although 
for  more  than  a  century  they  had  regarded  Russia  as  a 
friend  and  ally,  representative  of  sound  conservative 
ideas,  they  now  suddenly  looked  upon  her  as  the  embodi- 
ment of  barbarism. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  Sir  Edward  Grey  defended 
his  policy  in  the  House  of  Commons  it  is  significant  that 


224  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

he  dwelt  on  the  friendship  with  France  and  the  anger 
aroused  bj  Belgium's  fate  but  made  no  mention  of 
Russia,  although  the  tension  between  Russia  and  Aus- 
tria-Hungary was  the  cause  of  the  war.  France  was  at- 
tacked by  Germany  only  as  Russia's  ally  and  she  would 
have  remained  outside  of  the  war  if  she  had  not  stood 
by  Russia.  You,  dear  Mr.  Archer,  make  the  matter 
too  simple  when  you  compare  one  of  the  fighting  groups 
with  a  murderer  who,  armed  to  the  teeth,  assaults  and 
loots  an  innocent  and  unprepared  passer-by,  and  who  is 
finally  overthrown  and  found  to  have  his  pockets  full  of 
writings  which  prove  that  he  considers  murder  a  reli- 
gious duty  and  robbery  a  holy  deed. 

Of  course,  the  origin  of  the  war  lay  in  Austria-Hun- 
gary's b-1  tal  ultimatum  to  Serbia,  in  her  refusal  to  be 
satisfied  with  Serbia's  extramdinnvy  concessions,  and 
in  the  significant  haste  with  which  she  rushed  into  the 
weaker  neighbouring  state. 

Furthermore,  ~as  Germany  —  in  spite  of  her  anxiety 
to  inform  the  world  of  her  motives  and  actions  —  has  - 
been  very  careful  never  to  publish  the  telegrams  ex- 
changed between  Berlin  and  Vienna  preceding  the 
declaration  of  war,  no  sane  person  can  doubt  an  instant 
that  Emperor  Franz  Joseph  declared  war  on  Serbia 
with  Emperor  William's  full  assent.  Xo  reasoning  be- 
ing can  entertain  any  doubt  as  to  the  origin  of  the  pres- 
ent war,  nor  as  to  who  threw  the  match  which  set  the 
huge  haystack  aflame. 


IDEALS  OK  POLITICS?  225 

Nevertheless  the  war  has  not  sprung  from  relatively 
so  simple  a  matter  as  Austria-Hungary's  punitive  ex- 
pedition into  a  little  country,  which,  probably  not  un- 
truthfully, Austria  declared  she  did  not  wish  to  conquer 
but  merely  to  punish. 

The  war  is  ft  logical  result  of  ten  years"  pa^ssionate 
and  ceaseless  competition  between  the  Central  Powers 
and  the  Triple  Entente.  It  was  Russia's  and  Austria- 
Hungary's  struggle  for  the  supremacy  of  the  Balkans 
which  lay  behind  the  attack  on  Serbia  in  the  end  of 
July,  1914, 

During  the  First  Balkan  War,  through  the  intrigues 
of  a  Russian  diplomat,  Bulgaria  pledged  herself,  side  by 
side  with  Serbia,  to  do  all  in  her  power  to  frustrate  Aus- 
tria's plans.  In  1912,  Russia  foresaw  a  war  with  Aus- 
tria in  a  not  distant  future,  and  tried  to  unite  the  Slavs 
so  as  to  divide  Austria's  Slav  provinces  between  herself 
and  the  Balkan  statel  In  the  end  of  1912,  Germany 
increased  her  army  and  Bethmaun-Hollweg  discussed 
the  possibility  of  a  struggle  between  Slavs  and  Teutons. 

As  a  result  of  Germany's  move^  France  introduced 
three  years'  military  service;  Russia  evolved  a  very 
elaborate  program  of  military  reforms  which  according 
to  the  London  Times  (June  3,  1914)  were  of  a  nature 
to  "  make  Germany  nervous."  And  Germany  grew 
nervous.  There  came  an  unrest  over  the  German  press, 
which  began  to  speak  of  Russian  militarism  as  England 
speaks  of  the  German. 


226  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Germany  thought  that  Russia  would  have  completed 
her  military  preparations  in  1916.  There  was  no  time 
to  lose  if  the  Slavs  were  not  to  split  Austria-Hungary. 
Action  had  to  be  taken,  preferably  without  causing  war 
with  Russia,  and  Germany  hoped  the  Slav  alliance  could 
be  broken  and  Serbia  crushed  without  Russia's  inter- 
ference since  Russia  had  not  protested  when  Austria 
annexed  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, —  a  fact  one  would 
have  thought  of  serious  import  to  Russia. 

Why  was  Germany  mistaken  in  her  assumption  that 
Russia  would  not  go  to  war  ? 

xVpparently  because  Russia  knew  what  Germany 
(curiously  enough)  did  not  know,  namely  that  Russia 
now  could  count  on  the  assistance  of  England  as  well  as 
of  Erance.  The  Russians  understood  what  the  Ger- 
mans had  not  grasped,  that  the  Triple  Entente  was - 
much  more  solidly  cemented  than  the  Triple  Alliance. 
The  Russian  ministry  had  dra^\^l  the  right  conclusion 
from  the  naval  review  at  Portland  just  before  the  war. 
undoubtedly  Sir  Edward  Grey  tried  to  avoid  v  .ir  by 
every  means  within  his  power  at  the  precise  moment  it 
threatened  to  break  out.  But  he  had  bound  himself  and 
England  to  Francf?  by  ten  years'  negotiations  and  to 
Russia  by  seven  years'  secret  negotiations.  Besides  the 
entire  theory  of  the  European  equilibrium  threw  him 
into  the  arms  of  eastern  Europe. 

Therefore  the  war  is  not  merely  the  result  of  a  sudden 
Austro-German  attack,  but  of  ten  years'  competition  be- 


IDEALS  OE  POLITICS  ?  227 

tween  two  rival  groups  of  Powers.  It  is  also  an  in- 
structive example  of  what  European  conditions  are  in 
times  of  peace.  As  in  Heiberg's  A  Soul  after  Death, 
the  soul  learns  with  surprise  that  on  earth  it  was  really 
in  hell,  so  many  a  man  will  doubtlessly  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  in  peace  he  was  in  a  latent  state  of  war.  But 
this  is  so.  Even  in  times  of  peace,  people  —  like  the 
speaker  in  Ibsen's  poem  — "  thrust  with  joy  the  torpedo 
under  the  ark.''  Our  mediaeval  social  life  is  seeth- 
ing, to  the  point  of  insanity,  with  the  unreasonable. 
Consider  our  religious  conditions  and  our  educational 
systems  —  the  injustice  on  every  side,  in  economical 
matters  as  well  as  in  the  relations  between  the  sexes. 
One  out  of  every  two  decisions  made  in  times  of  peace 
is  an  expression  of  old,  antiquated  prejudices. 

But,  above  all,  in  peace  as  well  as  in  war,  the  stronger 
always  has  his  way.  The  saying  that  might  primes 
right  is  not  soinething  which  Germany  has  monopolised 
for  use  in  war.  It  is  charactf^ristic  of  all  Europe,  even 
in  times  of  peace.  And  surely  not  only  in  political 
matters  but  in  social  relations  as  well.  The  brutality 
of  war  is  possible  only  because  its  foundation  has  been 
built  in  times  of  peace. 

When  French  correspondents  besieged  me  and  asked 
why  I  had  not  given  vent  to  my  hidignation  at  the  fate 
of  Louvain  and  Eeims,  and  when  I  replied  honestly 
and  sincerely  that  if  I  were  to  protest  every  time  my 
sense  of  right  and  my  humane  feeling  were  outraged  I 


228  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

should  never  accomjylish  anything  else,  I  was  scornfully 
jeered  and  asked  if  I  daily  witnessed  events  comparable 
to  the  bombardment  of  open  cities,  and  the  brutalising 
of  civilian  populations?  My  answer  is  Yes,  for  such 
is  life  to-day.  Humanity  has  not  progressed  beyond 
that  point. 

When  La  Salle  in  his  day  explained  to  the  working- 
men  that  forcing  the  Government  to  gTant  a  constitution 
was  not  a  matter  of  right  but  of  might,  he  was  attacked 
and  insulted,  and  the  Prussian  premier,  Graf  Schwerin, 
under  the  applause  of  the  House  retorted  that  in  Prussia 
at  least,  right  ruled  might.  In  his  pamphlet,  Right 
and  Might,  La  Salle  replied:  ^^  If  I  had  created  the 
world,  it  is  very  probable  that,  quite  exceptionally,  I 
should  have  acted  in  accordance  with  Graf  Schwerin's 
wishes,  and  made  right  rule  might.  For  this  har- 
monises with  my  ethical  standard  and  my  moral  ideals. 
But  unfortunately,  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  create  the 
world  and  must  therefore  deny  all  responsibility,  praise 
as  well  as  blame,  for  its  real  organisation." 

The  difference  between  La  Salle's  point  of  view  and 
that  of  Germany  of  to-day  is  that  Germany  not  only  ac- 
cepts as  a  fact,  but  considers  it  quite  just  and  even 
mor.nl,  that  there  should  be  no  other  right  than  that  ere 
ated  by  might. 

The  Gei-mans  are  not  hypocritical,  and  do  not  pre- 
tend to  fight  for  anything  but  the  power  which  they 
claim  ought  to  be  theirs.     England  and  Erance,  how- 


IDEALS  OK  POLITICS?  229 

ever,  seem  to  sway  in  the  illusion  that  they,  in  co-opera- 
tion with  Eussia,  are  really  fighting  for  right  and 
justice,  for  the  placing  of  small  nations  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  larger  ones, —  for  all  ideals  of  hu- 
manity, in  short. 

It  would  be  interesting,  dear  Mr.  Archer,  if  you. 
would  tell  us  for  w^hich  ideals  Russia^  is  fighting  at  the 
present  moment  ?  Or  for  which  igteal  England  fights 
when  she  makes  as  many  German  babies  as  possible  die 
of  hunger,  when  she  establishes  a  state  of  siege  in  Ire- 
land, does  away  with  Persia's  independence,  and  when 
with  the  word  ^'  Nationality  "  on  her  lips  she  gives  half 
a  dozen  small  nations  over  to  enslavement?  Or  for 
which  ideal  Erance  and  England  are  fighting  when  they 
strangle  little  Greece  ? 

We  all  know  that  Great  Britain  is  remarkable  for  her 
political  liberty,  which  Germany  is  far  from  having 
attained.  We  know  that  in  Great  Britain  there  is  a 
sort  of  limited  free  thought  —  least  developed  on  reli- 
gious and  sexual  questions  —  but  such  as  it  is  much 
deeper  and  more  sincere  than  in  Germany.  We  Danes 
are  imable  to  love  Prussia  —  to  use  a  very  mild  expres- 
sion. Three  thousand  North  Schleswigers  have  fallen 
as  enforced  participants  in  a  fight  for  the  enemy  against 
their  friends. 

Prussia's  governmental  system  in  Schleswig  has  been 
unable  to  tune  us  to  love,  although  it  may  have  inspired 
us  with  other  feelings  than  hatred,  namely  surprise  at 


230  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

the  Germans'  incomprehensible  stupidity  and  their  ab- 
solute lapk  of  the  most  elemental  psychology  in  hand- 
ling foreign  elements  in  the  empire. 

We  have  watched  England's  treatment  of  Ireland 
during  seven  hundred  years,  and  we  compare  and  re- 
main silent,  for  England,  now  and  again,  does  show  a 
tendency  to  make  up  for  the  injustice  of  the  past. 

And  we  know  that  in  spite  of  everything  English 
liberalism  is  a  reality,  just  as  we  know  that  French 
culture,  where  it  has  reached  its  greatest  heights,  is  more 
liberal  than  the  German.  But  when  the  English  speak 
of  Germany's  lust  of  power  or  when  the  Germans  speak 
of  England's  brutal  egoism,  the  accusations  leave  us 
cold,  from  both  sides. 

It  may  happen  that  a  nation  fighting  for  its  interest 
also  furthers  civilisation.  England  has  showTi  that. 
Once  every  hundred  years  a  statesman  may  act  nobly 
and  unselfishly  out  of  high-mindedness  and  pride,  as 
George  Washington.  After  the  War  of  Independence 
liad  been  successfully  carried  out  with  the  help  of  the 
French  under  Lafayette,  he  declared  himself  neutral 
during  the  war  between  England  and  France.  Unlike 
Wilson  at  the  present  moment  and  grasping  American 
money-makers,  he  forbade  under  the  severest  penalty 
and  imprisonment  the  exportation  of  arms  and  muni- 
tions to  either  belligerent. 

But,  as  a  rule,  statesmen  are  not  actuated  by  moral 
considerations  but  by  political  ones.     All  are  selfish  and 


IDEALS  OR  POLITICS  ?  231 

have  been  so  from  time  immemorial.  No  nation,  and 
least  of  all  a  great  Power  in  our  days,  offers  millions 
of  men  and  billions  of  pounds  sterling  for  any  other  ob- 
ject than  this  nation's  political  advancement  and  eco- 
nomic advantage. 


LET  JUSTICE  REIGX! 

Reply  to  Mr.  Archer 

Dear  Mr.  Archer: 

After  every  public  expression  of  opinion,  I  am,  as 
you  may  imagine,  bombarded  with  letters,  signed  or 
anonymous,  complaining  of  my  ignorance  or  insulting 
me.  The  very  same  day  you  published  your  open  let- 
ter to  me  I  received  with  the  German  mail  a  note,  as  far 
as  I  can  judge,  from  a  business  man  in  Mainz.  He 
accuses  me  of  having  been  outrageously  unjust  to  Ger- 
many in  the  Appeal  which  caused  your  English  dis- 
pleasure. The  letter  reads  in  part :  ''  I  see  by  the 
Frankfurt  er  Zeitung  that  in  an  article  on  peace  you 
say  both  sides  claim  to  have  been  attacked.  Haven't 
you  read  the  Belgian  documents  (published  by  Mittler 
und  Sohn,  Berlin)  orlhe  pamphlet  Belgium  Neutrality 
(published  by  Reimers,  Berlin)  containing  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  British  Ministry  of  War  and  the 
Belgian  General  Staff,  found  in  Brussels  ?  These  docu- 
ments prove  conclusively  that  the  Triple  Entente  was 
animated  by  a  desire  to  encircle  Germany  and  to  crush 
her  at  the  first  opportunity."  The  writer  has  been  told 
that  with  one  exception  the  Danish  press  has  never  men- 
*  232 


LET  JUSTICE  EEIG:^r!  233 

tioned  Kussia's  barbarous  treatment  of  German  prison- 
ers. It  is  not  difficult  to  recognise  the  manoeuvres  of 
the  foreign  press  to  injure  Germany.  "  Rousseau  says 
in  his  Confessions:  '  When  you  know  men  you  cannot 
help  despising  them.'  If  he  were  still  in  this  worst  of 
all  worlds  he  would  undoubtedly  say :  ^  When  you  know 
neutrals  you  cannot  help  despising  them.' "  The 
writer  thereupon  sends  me  his  respectful  compliments. 

You  see,  dear  Mr.  Archer,  that  the  statement  which 
you  consider  biased  in  favour  of  Germany  only  brings 
me  from  Germany  assurances  of  being  despised. 

I  will  have  to  try  to  console  myself  as  best  I  can. 

You,  as  an  Englishman,  are  convinced  that  Germany 
alone  is  responsible  for  the  war,  and  my  unknown  Ger- 
man correspondent  is  equally  convinced  that  England 
alone  is  responsible  for  it.  Future  historians  will  have 
to  settle  the  dispute  and  perhaps  they  will  find  that  the 
whole  question  has  been  wrongly  stated.  That  is  my 
feeling. 

¥:  ^  ¥r 

Dear  Mr.  Archer,  you  seem  to  regard  it  as  a  sort  of 
moral  weakness  that  I  should  plead  for  peace  at  a  time 
when  justice  has  not  yet  been  meted  out  by  the  Allies' 
decisive'  victory.  "  The  w^orst  that  could  happen,"  you 
say,  "  would  be  a  victory  for  the  great  lie." 

Therefore  let  sacrifices  be  heaped  upon  sacrifices,  let 
ruin  and  destruction  spread  still  further  to  advance  the 
good  cause !  — 


234  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  war  I  felt  it  would  end 
as  a  draw,  and  I  have  frequently  written  that  in  all 
probability  there  will  be  no  overwhelming  victory  for 
either  side.  And  my  views  have  been  strengthened  by 
the  events  of  the  past  twenty-eight  months. 

Yet  peace  is  bound  to  come  some  time. 

Before  Prussian  militarism  has  been  crushed?  the 
Allies  ask  in  anger. 

But  militarism  cannot  be  crushed  by  militarism,  war 
cannot  be  driven  out  of  the  world  by  war,  oppression  by 
oppression,  evil  by  evil. 

As  the  fundamental  causes  (^  the  war  are  of  a  polit- 
ical-economic nature,  the  final  agreement  must  be  based 
on  a  political-economic  understanding.  And  as  such  an 
agreement  can  be  made  now,  it  is  nothing  short  of  crimi- 
nal to  continue  the  wholesale  murder. 

If  the  war  is  to  end  by  an  overwhelming  victory  for 
one  side  it  will  probably  have  to" last  two  years  more,  at 
least.  By  that  time,  however,  Europe's  capital  will  be 
exhausted,  and  still  more  misery  will  have  spread  over 
the  earth. 

By  that  time  the  miserable  serfs  who  in  times  of  peace 
sweat  in  the  factories,  and  who,  in  times  of  war  by 
means  of  the  highly  praised  instrument  of  oppression 
called  compulsory  military  service  are  sent  into  the  fire 
like  slaves,  will  have  arrived  at  such  a  frenzied  state 
of  exaltation  and  despair  that  the  social  revolution,  of 
which  there  has  been  so  much  talk,  will  become  a  reality. 


LET  JUSTICE  KEIGIST!  335 

It  has  been  kept  down  as  long  as  mankind  retained  a 
jot  of  common  sense.  But  if  the  war  lasts  much  more 
it  will  burst  forth  and  rage  as  war  madness  rages  now ; 
it  will  follow  in  the  wake  of  the  war  as  the  Commune 
did  in  Paris  in  1871,  and  the  few  remnants  of  a  higher 
intellectual  civilisation  which  the  war  may  have  spared 
will  be  levelled  to  the  ground  with  as  little  mercy  as  the 
beautiful  churches  and  halls  are  destroyed  in  the  north 
of  France  to-day. 

Yet  this  revolution  will  have  to  be  made  by  women 
and  cripples ;  there  will  scarcely  be  enough  men  left. 

I  know  very  well  that  war  is  popular  in  England. 
But  that  does  not  move  my  stony  heart.  The  masses 
think  as  they  are  cleverly  led  to  think.  Has  any  war 
been  more  popular  in  England  than  the  war  against  the 
colonies  when  they  tried  to  break  away  from  England 
to  become  the  United  States?  And  how  is  that  war 
thought  of  in  England  to-day  ? 

In  spite  of  the  excitations  of  the  sensational  press, 
who  can  find  enough  opposition^  between  England  and 
Germany  to  warrant  a  continuation  of  slaughter  ? 

As*  far  back  as  April  5,  1916,  the  German  Chan- 
cellor, Bethmann-Hollweg,  declared :  "  Europe,  for 
the  sake  of  its  peace-loving  population,  must  be  a  Eu- 
rope of  peaceful  endeavour.  The  peace  that  is  to  come 
after  the  war  must  be  a  durable  peace.  It  must  not 
contain  the  seed  of  a  new  war,  but  the  seed  for  a  definite 
and  final  peaceful  settlement  of  European  affairs." 


236  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

April  10,  1916,  Mr.  Asquith,  the  British  premier,  re- 
plied : 

"  Great  Britain  and  France  entered  the  war  not  to 
strangle  Germany,  not  to  wipe  her  off  the  map  of  Eu- 
rope, not  to  destroy  or  mutilate  her  national  life,  surely 
not  to  interfere  with  what  the  Chancellor  terms  ^  the 
free  exercise  of  her  peaceful  endeavours.'  The  Allies' 
object  in  the  war  is  to  pave  the  way  for  an  international 
system  which  will  insure  the  establishment  of  equal 
rights  for  all  civilised  nations." 

If  both  parties  were  sincere,  however,  there  ought  to 
be  a  possibility  of  reaching  an  understanding. 

One  of  the  most  desperate  phases  of  present  war,  how- 
ever, is  the  way  in  which  the  leaders  in  belligerent 
countries,  men  of  science  and  culture,  unhesitatingly 
and  under  deafening  applause  cater  to  the  prejudices  of 
their  own  country.  They  are  as  blind  and  unable  to 
look  truth  in  the  face  as  the  cheapest  newspaper  they 
read  and  condemn.  Each  one  defends  his  country's 
holy  cause  and  falsifies  history.  All  write  the  same 
way.  It  is  only  necessary  to  replace  the  word  German 
by  English,  or  Russian  by  Hungarian,  and  the  articles 
read  exactly  alike. 

Blind  patriotism  has  devoured  the  love  of  truth. 

It  was  not  like  that  before.  Once  upon  a  time 
thinkers  and  philosophers  honoured  truth. 

Erasmus  wrote :  "  There  is  nothing  so  ridiculous, 
so  baneful,  so  destructive,  as  war;  nothing  less  worthy 


LET  JUSTICE  REIGIS^!  237 

of  mankind,  not  to  mention  the  Christian.  .  .  .  "War  is 
worse  than  bestial ;  no  wild  beast  is  as  frightful  as  man 
is  to  man.  Wild  animals  fight  with  natural  weapons 
only,  while  we  prepare  for  general  slaughter  with 
weapons  which  I^Tature  never  knew.  .  .  .  What  trage- 
dies are  enacted  on  the  battle-field  for  the  most  miser- 
able pretexts!  Eor  the  sake  of  one  or  another  anti- 
quated prejudice,  doubtful  lust  of  land!  .  .  .  Purely 
fiendish  destruction  is  called  a  holy  war.  .  .  .  Wliat  is 
war  but  murder  and  theft  perpetrated  by  masses  attack- 
ing other  masses !  " 

Pierre  Bayle  in  his  Dictionnaire  considers  Erasmus' 
essay  on  war  one  of  the  most  beautiful  ever  vrritten. 

Few  realists  have  hated  war  as  Voltaire.  Eew  have 
proved  its  absurdity  as  he.  He  was  probably  the  first 
to  point  out  that  after  a  few  years  the  victor  suffered  as 
much  as  the  vanquished. 

Voltaire  attacks  preventive  war  whose  motive  is, 
"  You  must  take  by  surprise  and  crush  a  neighbour  who 
has  not  attacked  you  but  who  might  intend  to  do  so.  In 
other  words,  jeopardise  your  o^vn  land  on  the  chance  of 
ruining  another's.''  Voltaire  has  described  the  mad- 
ness and  wildness  of  war,  has  painted  its  horrors, 
pointed  to  the  irony  of  priests  blessing  flags  and  ban- 
ners, which  always  implies  killing  a  neighbour  whom, 
according  to  the  Gospel,  one  should  love.  He  asks: 
"  W^at  has  the  Church  done  to  stop  such  crimes  ? " 
Bourdaloue  preached  against  unchastity,  but  has  he  ever 


238  THE  WOELD  AT  WAK 

delivered  a  sermon  against  the  murder,  robbery,  and 
universal  madness  which  is  ruining  the  world  ?  "  You 
pitiful  guardians  of  souls,"  he  cries,  ^'  you  argue  about 
a  pinprick  and  lift  not  your  voices  against  the  curse 
that  is  tearing  us  into  a  thousand  pieces !  " 

In  Micromegas  he  scourges  man's  desire  to  hurt  his 
neighbour  by  war.  The  small  figure  from  the  earth 
says  to  the  large  inhabitant  of  the  planet  Sirius :  "  Do 
you  know  that  a  hundred  thousand  creatures  like  myself 
with  hats  on  their  heads  at  the  present  moment  are  kill- 
ing a  hundred  thousand  other  such  animals  because  they 
wear  turbans  ?  Or  are  killed  by  them  ?  "  (Allusion  to 
Russia's  war  against  Turkey  in  1737.) 

What  would  he  say  to-day  when  a  patriot  like  Romain 
Rolland  is  stamped  as  a  traitor  to  his  country  because 
he  admitted  he  still  had  friends  among  the  German  peo- 
ple? 

I  know  very  well  w^hat  you,  dear  Mr.  Archer,  will 
reply  to  the  quotations  from  Erasmus,  Bayle,  and  Vol- 
taire on  war  in  general.  You  say :  "  But  justice ! 
What  can  humanity  gain  by  allowing  it  to  be  trodden 
upon  ?     Is  life  worth  living  without  it  ?  " 

Alas,  dear  Mr.  Archer,  justice  is  a  heavenly  goddess. 
But  she  wears,  as  you  know,  a  band  across  her  eyes. 

As  you,  Mr.  Archer,  understand  our  language,  you 
are  doubtlessly  familiar  with  our  famous  poet  Wessel's 
clever  little  satire:  The  Smith  and  the  Baker,  which 
corresponds  to  the  Polish-Jewish   story  of  the  Shoe- 


LET  JUSTICE  KEIGIST!  239 

maker  from  Kilikow.  It  deals  with  a  young,  able- 
bodied  blacksmith  (the  only  one  in  the  village)  who  in 
a  fit  of  passion  committed  murder  and  who,  according 
to  the  law  as  conceived  by  mortals,  should  be  hung 
therefor.  Four  or  five  of  his  fellow  citizens  intercede 
in  his  behalf,  however.     The  judge  objects : 

"  Consider,  dear  sirs,  that  a  life  has  been  taken.  It 
must  be  redeemed  by  another  life." 

The  spokesman  for  the  group  of  fellow  citizens  rer 
plies : 

"  Here  lives  a  poor,  decrepit  baker. 
Who,  by  death,  will  soon  be  carried  off. 
We  have  two  bakers, —  let  us  hang  the  elder! 
Life  would  still  pay  for  the  life  that  has  been  taken." 

The  judge  reflects  and  finally  agrees  to  the  clever 
suggestion : 

"  I  hereby  consent. 

Since  life  must  pay  for  life, 

To  have  the  elder  baker  hang  for  the  blacksmith's  crime, 
As  suitable,  well  deserved  punishment  for  himself 
And  a  fearful,  instructive  example  for  his  fellows." 

This  is  a  truthful  picture  of  the  justice  which  you, 
dear  Mr.  Archer  and  other  Allied  authors,  will  gain  by 
continuing  the  war.  Those  who  are  being  shot  down 
and  crippled,  whose  sons  and  husbands  are  being  car- 
ried away,  who  are  being  swallowed  in  the  great  horror 
on  both  sides,  are  as  innocent  of  the  whole  revolting  war 


240  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

'» 

as  the  baker  v/ho  was  hung  because  the  blacksmith  com- 
mitted murder. 

Suppose  it  were  possible  to  point  to  half  a  dozen  men 
whom  one  could  blame  for  the  war.  Powerful  men 
like  Graf  Tisza,  the  German  Crown  Prince,  Sir  Edward 
Grey,  ]\[r.  Sazonoff,  M.  Delcasse,  writers  like  General 
Bernhardi,  Maximilian  Harden,  the  Englishman  Maxse, 
and  the  Frenchman  Barrcs.  Let  us  imagine,  for  an  in- 
stant, that  they  could  be  called  the  guilty  ones. 

Would  so-called  justice  be  meted  out  if  these  men 
were  tortured  and  executed  with  all  the  atrocities  of 
former  days  ?  liso  man  in  his  senses  could  think  so. 
How  much  less,  then,  is  justice  carried  out  by  obliging 
a  few  more  million  men  to  be  shot  in  the  trenches  while 
a  few  extra  million  civilians,  women  and  children,  are 
doomed  to  death,  mutilation  and  misery! 

I  knew  very  well,  dear  Mr.  Archer,  that  an  essen- 
tial condition  would  be  Belgium's  and  Serbia's  re-estab- 
lishment as  independent  nations.  I  do  not  see  why  this 
should  not  be  possible.  Even  if  Germany  for  the  time 
being  holds  a  certain  amount  of  territory,  she  is  weak 
economically  and  must  pay  for  the  cessation  of  the  Brit- 
ish blockade. 

Incidentally  it  seems  to  me  that  in  regard  to  the  peace 
programme  the  Allies  were  a  trifle  hasty  in  deciding 
everything  at  the  beghming  of  the  war.  Wliile  with  not 
very  ingratiating  candour  a  large  faction  in  Germany 
demanded  that  the  Government  annex  large  portions  of 


LET  JUSTICE  REIGN^  241 

territory,  the  Frencli  at  once  had  the  whole  programme 
of  liberty  arranged.  Alsace-Lorraine  was  to  be  re- 
turned to  France,  Denmark  was  to  acquire  her  lost 
provinces;  Poland  was  to  become  an  independent  state 
under  Russian  autlioritv;  AH  fj-ieiids  of  France,  hope 
that  Alsace-Lorraine  will  become  French  again.  Rus- 
sian Poland,  for  the  time  being,  is  still  in  the  hands  of 
the  Germans  and  Austrians,  and  if  it  is  to  gain  any  in- 
dependence it  would  seem  as  if  this  would  have  to  be 
granted  by  the  Central  Empires  rather  than  by  Russia. 

I  do  not  think  I  love  justice  less  than  Mr.  Archer 
or  any  of  the  other  belligerent  writers.  I  burn  with 
just  as  passionate  a  desire  as  they  to  see  it  fulfilled. 
Only  I  do  not  believe  it  is  quite  as  concrete  and  palpable 
as  they.  And  the  justice  which  consists  in  having  mil- 
lions of  defenceless  people  bleed  and  be  killed  for  the 
mistakes  and  crimes  committed  by  a  few  short-sighted 
politicians  —  from  such,  justice  let  all  powers  preserve 
us ! 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA 

Reply  to  Mr.  Aecher 
(July,  1916) 

A  Danish  writer  is  at  a  great  disadvantage  in  pole- 
mics with  foreigners.  For  even  if  they  have  seen  the 
detached  article  which  caused  their  displeasure  and  even 
if  they  have  read  it  carefully  —  which  scarcely  ever 
happens  —  they  know  nothing  whatsoever  of  the  other 
statements  he  has  made  on  the  same  subject  and  to  re- 
fute him  they  use  the  very  same  arguments  which  he 
himself  has  used  again  and  again.  They  credit  him 
with  intentions  which  not  only  are  foreign  to  him  but 
which  he  has  distinctly  combatted.  In  their  excite- 
ment they  create  such  a  confusion  that  he  finds  himself 
involved  as  in  a  barbed  wire  net  of  absurdities  which 
must  first  be  cleared  away  before  he  can  begin  to  argue 
with  his  opponent. 

When  a  writer  in  a  world  language  expresses  himself 
concisely  about  a  question  he  takes  it  for  granted  that 
his  readers  or  others  who  may  agree  or  disagree  with 
him  are  familiar  with  his  previous  utterances  on  the  sub- 
ject.    He  does  not  have  to  repeat  himself.     The  Danish 

242 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA  243 

writer  addressing  the  foreigner  notes  with  a  shock  that 
nothing  is  taken  for  granted  where  he  is  concerned. 
He  is  rudely  taken  to  task  for  matters  of  which  he  knows 
much  more  than  they  —  matters  in  which  he  has  shown 
his  authority  again  and  again.  On  such  premises 
polemics  easily  degenerate  into  vulgar  wrangling,  pe- 
dantic hair  splitting  as  to  how  certain  phrases  are  to 
be  interpreted. 

Half  of  what  Mr.  Archer  brings  out  against  me  in 
his  ''  Color  blind  Neutrality  —  An  open  letter  to  Dr. 
Georg  Brandes,"  I  have,  in  other  words,  either  written 
myself  or  else  refuted.  I  could  not,  without  a  discus- 
sion equally  irksome  to  the  reader  and  to  me,  explain  it, 
and  I  therefore  prefer  to  group  my  opinions  on  certain 
main  issues  and  thus  present  them. 

Europe  and  Asia  each  have  theirs. 


Belgium 

There  can  scarcely  be  any  difference  between  Mr. 
Archer  and  myself  as  to  the  feelings  inspired  by  Bel- 
gium's fate.  I  know  Captain  de  Gerlache's  book  and 
sjonpathise  with  the  people  on  whom  misfortunes 
poured. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  anger  felt  not  only  in 
Europe  but  in  all  America  as  well,  it  would  seem  as  if 
the  Germans  had  acted  not  only  more  honourably,  but 


244  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

more  wisely,  if  tliey  had  marched  at  Verdun  instead  of    ^ 
attracting  the  odium  of  the  world  by  attacking  a  neu- 
tral state,  especially  one  whose  neutrality  they  them- 
selves had  g-uaranteed. 

It  is  but  natural  that  England  and  France,  who  are 
in  debt  to  Belgium's  sacrifice,  should  lay  stress  on  Bel- 
gian heroism  and  praise  the  country  to  the  skies  at  the 
cost  of  the  nations  which,  according  to  Mr.  Archer,  have 
been  content  to  reap  ^'  the  satisfactions  of  neutrality," — 
satisfactions  embittered,  among  other  things,  by  Eng- 
land's efforts  to  starve  GeiTnany  by  starving  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  Belgium's  fate  has  not  only  a 
sentimental  but  a  political  aspect.  And  as  far  as  the 
political  side  is  concerned,  it  does  not  seem  at  all  clear 
to  me  that  Great  Britain  has  done  her  entire  duty. 

As  is  well  known,  England,  in  1839,  together  with  the 
other  Powers,  guaranteed  Belgian  neutrality.  She 
went  on  record  as  sponsor  for  this  neutrality,  although 
no  provisions  were  made  as  to  how  England  would 
defend  it  in  the  event  of  a  Continental  war.  Great 
Britain  could  not  give  any  such  promise  for  the  simple 
reason  that  she  would  be  unable  to  live  up  to  it. 
Belgium's  neutrality  could  only  be  assured  by  a  large 
body  of  troops  which  would  not  be  at  England's  disposal 
in  the  event  of  such  a  war. 

]N^ow  the  possibility  of  a  Franco-German  war  had 
been  a  matter  of  discussion  for  several  years.  The  gen- 
eral staffs  in  the  various  countries  of  Europe  were'famil- 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA  245 

iar  with  it.  The  most  probable  strategetic  moves  of  the 
war  had  been  discussed  beforehand  in  the  various 
countries'  military  reviews.  According  to  authoritative 
opinions,  Germany,  in  order  to  deal  France  a  rapid 
and  decisive  blow,  would  pass  through  Belgium,  as  the 
French  border  was  so  strongly  defended  that  it  could  be 
forced  only  with  the  greatest  difficulty.  In  other  words, 
military  writers  in  the  various  countries  considered  Ger- 
many's march  through  Belgium  her  only  chance  of  suc- 
cess. All  knew  that  Germany  had  built  her  network  of 
railroads  up  against  the  Belgian  frontier.  In  Septem- 
ber, 1914,  Lord  Winston  Churchill  said  in  Parliament 
that  he  had  been  familiar  with  the  German  plan  for 
three  years.  As  early  as  February,  1914,  a  layman  and 
private  citizen  —  the  author  of  these  lines  —  said  in  a 
public  lecture  that  this  was  the  German  plan. 

—  The  only  nation  that  seems  to  have  had  no  realisa- 
tion of  this  design  was  France,  which,  curiously  enough, 
took  no  steps  to  oppose  it.  Still,  Mr.  Archer  and 
I  are  discussing  England,  not  France. — 

Under  these  conditions  what  did  England  do  to  pre- 
vent the  violation  of  right,  the  overstepping  of  the 
frontier?  Did  she  beforehand  threaten  every  Power, 
which  might  attempt  to  break  in  on  Belgian  territory, 
with  England's  enmity? 

If  England  was  not  strong  enough  to  defend  Belgium 
by  force  of  arms,  she  at  least  ovv^ed  the  little,  dangerously 
exposed  country  a  piece  of  unselfish  i:dvice.     Belgium 


246  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

/should  have  been  warned  that  it  would  probably  be  im- 
possible to  transport  a  sufficient  number  of  British 
troops  in  time  to  be  of  real  service.  She  should  have 
been  told  that  the  French  army,  unprepared  as  it  was, 
would  not  be  able  to  bring  up  reinforcements  rapidly. 

If,  after  such  a  hint,  Belgium  still  preferred  to  resist 
immensely  more  powerful  masses  of  troops  instead  of 
merely  bowing  in  protest  under  exigencies  of  a  force 
majeure  and  granting  a  passage  which  she  could  not, 
after  all,  hinder  —  then  England  could  have  let^  her 
hands  lie  idle,  and  Belgium  would  have  had  only  herself 
to  blame  for  the  misfortimes  which  her  proud,  noble 
attitude  brought  upon  her. 

But,  to  begin  with,  Belgium  seems  to  have  counted  on 
a  much  greater  assistance  than  the  handful  of  troops 
which,  at  the  last  minute,  were  rushed  into  Antwerp; 
and  in  the  second  place  to  have  hesitated  slightly  as  to 
which  course  to  take.  As  late  as  the  third  of  August 
the  British  minister  in  Brussels  cabled  to  the  foreign 
office  that  the  French  Government  had  offered  the  Bel- 
gian Government  five  corps  d'armee,  but  had  received 
the  following  answer.  "  We  are  sincerely  grateful  for 
the  French  Government's  offer  of  assistance.  For  the 
moment,  however,  we  do  not  intend  to  appeal  to  the 
Powers'  guarantee.  The  Belgian  Government  will  de- 
cide later  as  to  the  course  of  action  it  finds  necessary  to 
take." 

Even  at  the  eleventh  hour,  therefore,  as  far  as  one  can 


BELGIUM  —  PEKSIA  247 

see,  Belgium  reflected  as  to  the  possibility  of  assuming 
the  attitude  of  an  enforcedly  neutral  onlooker.  If  she 
had  given  in  to  force  and  accepted  the  indemnity  offered 
which  could  have  been  increased  to  cover  all  damage 
done  by  German  troops,  Belgium  undoubtedly  would 
have  lacked  the  aureole  of  heroism  which  now  shines 
around  her,  but  she  would  have  been  spared  destruction 
and  still  more  cruel  humiliations.  And  no  sane  person 
could  have  classed  her  action  as  lacking  honour  or  even 
wisdom.  Assuredly  poor  Belgium  is  now  highly  praised 
and  admired,  but  still  she  has,  in  the  main,  served  as  a 
cat's  paw  for  Erance  and  England. 

II 

In  the  eloquent  brochure  which  Mr.  Archer  has  issued 
against  me,  he  is  too  much  of  a  gentleman  to  bring  the 
discussion  into  personal  channels. 

]Srevertheless,  I  cannot  well  accept  the  picture  he 
draws  of  me  for  his  countrymen.  Eor  (like  my  Ger- 
man, French,  and  Russian  opponents)  he  conveys  the 
idea  that  while  my  abilities  may  be  considerable,  I  lack 
all  notion  of  justice,  that  I  try  to  find  the  mean  between 
truth  and  falsehood,  and  that  I  am  unable  to  feel  the  in- 
dignation which  makes  a  man  play  a  strong  and  de- 
cisive part  in  any  cause. 

If,  in  this  world  war,  I  ha,ven*t  taken  any  one  defi- 
nite side  as  all  citizens  in  belligerent  and  many  in  neu- 
tral countries,  it  is  on  the  contrary  because  my  indigna- 


^ 


248  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

tion  is  too  great,  my  pessimism  too  deep,  my  doubts  too 
well  founded,  my  idealism  too  unshakeable.  l^either 
belligerent  group  answers  to  my  conception  of  justice 
and  righteousness,  unselfishness,  nobility  or  benefit  to 
humanity.  Again  and  again  my  accusers  attack  me  by 
the  scornful  ''neutral/'  Mr.  Archer  says  once  again: 
The  mode  of  thought  that  conduces  to  neutrality  is  so 
low  that  '^  no  matter  how  much  sorrow  the  war  has 
caused  him  or  will  bring  him —  for  nothing  in  the  world 
would  he  be  a  neutral." 

Extraordinary  how  "  neutrality  "  changes  in  the  life 
of  nations !  When  I  was  twenty-two  I  did  not  dream  I 
should  live  to  see  Denmark  ridiculed  by  France  and 
England  because  she  remained  neutral!  In  1864  Den- 
mark all  alone  fought  Prussia  and  Austria,  the  two 
powers  against  which  Russia,  England,  France,  Italy, 
Serbia,  Belgium,  Montenegro,  Portugal,  Japan,  and  the 
United  States  as  munition  makers  now  have  been  united 
for  what  is  becoming  the  third  year.  And  they  are  still 
seeking  new  allies.  In  1864  all  these  powers  remaine 
neutral.  [N'ot  a  single  one  moved  a  finger  against  the 
two  Central  Powern,  in  spit»^  c»f  t  iact  tfuit  Deuma;  !v 
accepted  war  ..ociuäc  ähc  relied  on  definite  promises 
made  by  tlie  Er-lglish  GovcTnraeat  to  the  effect  \at 
"  Denmark  would  not  be  allowed  to  stand  alone.  .  .  ." 

And  Denmark  is  abused  and  called  ''neutral'' 
by  the  Germans,  who  assaulted  us  ät  that  time  and  now 
inform  us  that  there  is  nothing  as  despicable  as  nea- 


BELGIUM  —  PEESIA  249 

trality.  And  in  her  reduced  and  helpless  position,  Den- 
mark is  scorned  to-day  by  the  very  same  nations,  the 
English  and  French  who,  with  unpardonable  lack  of 
foresight  for  their  own  interests,  stubbornly  remained 
neutral,  that  time  when  Denmark  with  her  two  million 
inhabitants,  all  alone,  bore  the  brunt  of  the  arms  of  the 
powers  whom  England  and  France  have  set  half  the 
world  in  motion  to  overcome,  if  possible. 


BELGIUM —  PEKSIA 

III 

Persia 

Persia  is  the  name  of  Asiatic  Belgium. 

Persia  had  long  been  in  a  state  of  decadence.  As  her 
reigning  house,  as  well  as  the  highest  aristocracy,  were 
among  the  most  corrupt  of  the  Orient,  her  independence 
stood  on  a  very  tottering  foundation.  The  rivalry  be- 
tween Russia  and  England  affected  the  country,  and 
Russia  was  given  practically  free  reins  when  England 
became  engrossed  in  the  Boer  War. 

In  1906,  after  Russia's  defeat  in  the  Japanese  War,  a 
powerful  reform  movement  fermented  in  the  Far  as 
well  as  in  the  Xear  East.  China  became  a  republic, 
Turkey  acquired  a  parliament ;  in  Persia  the  movement 
concentrated  in  a  rebellion  against  the  Shah's  tyranny 
and  against  the  domination  of  Russian  influence  at  the 
court. 

The  movement  began  by  a  general  strike  in  midsum- 
mer. ]Sro  less  than  12,000  Persians  sought  refuge  in 
the  British  consulate  in  Teheran.  The  Shah  was  com- 
pelled to  grant  a  constitution,  and  the  people  ascribed 

260 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA  251 

this  victory  to  England's  unseen  influence  quite  as  much 
as  to  their  own  efforts. 

Persia's  first  parliament  (Meilis),  was  opened  in 
October,  1906,  and  England's  prestige  in  the  old  cul- 
tural country  had  never  been  greater. 

Then  Sir  Edward  Grey,  without  consulting  the  Per- 
sians made  an  agreement  with  Russia.  Persia  was  sur- 
prised and  hurt  to  find  that  England  (as  well  as  Rus- 
sia) looked  upon  the  country  as  a  mere  stretch  of  land, 
a  means  of  granting  concessions,  a  market  for  trade. 
Both  Powers  agreed  to  respect  Persia's  sovereignty 
and  to  guarantee  her  integrity  but  then  divided  the 
country  between  them  just  as  Poland  was  divided  in  her 
day.  In  the  north,  Russia  took  half  the  country  —  the 
rich  and  peopled  territories  and  cities  of  Teheran, 
Tabriz,  and  Ispahan.  England  took  the  narrow  strip 
in  the  southwest,  barren  and  sparsely  inhabited.  Be- 
tween the  two  districts  remained  a  neutral  band  of 
deserts  and  mountains. 

Because  we  have  always  admired  England  as  the 
home  of  political  liberty,  of  free  trade,  as  the  only 
country  which  the  small  nations  could  look  upon  as  an 
eventual  protector,  disappointment  was  intense  when 
England,  in  her  dealings  with  Persia,  went  back  on  her 
past,  her  principles  —  yea,  on  her  deepest,  truest  inter- 
ests. 

When  England  made  the  agreement  with  Russia,  Rus- 
sia was  a  defeated,  impoverished  nation,  whose  army 


252  THE  WORLD  AT  WAK 

was  uon-existent  and  whose  population  was  in  a  state 
of  revolution.  When  England,  through  Persia,  caught 
her  under  the  arms  and  held  her  up,  this  was  only  a  play 
for  Russia's  good-will  and  alliance  in  view  of  a  coming 
luar  between  England  arid  Germany, 

Sir  Edward  Grey  paid  a  high  price.  Englishmen 
who,  like  Lord  Curzon  (former  viceroy  of  India),  were 
familiar  with  Indian  conditions,  were  much  opposed  to 
the  arrangement.  It  is  an  old  principle  of  English 
politics  that  Persia's  independence  be  maintained 
to  act  as  a  buffer  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia. 
Evidently  Sir  Edward  Grey  counted  on  England's  aud 
Russia's  friendship  lasting  eternally.  Russia's  w^ay  to 
India  was  now  shortened,  and  England  noted  as  first 
result  of  the  agreement  the  building  of  a  Russian  rail- 
way from  Baku  via  Teheran  and  Bombay. 

The  agreement  was  signed  August  31,  1907.  To 
reassure  the  people,  the  English  minister  issued  an  ex- 
planatory note  supposed  to  represent  both  the  English 
and  Russian  Governments.  They  claimed  to  be  united 
in  their  efforts  to  maintain  Persian  sovereignty  and  in- 
tegTity;  they  would  not  interfere  with  Persian  affairs 
unless  acts  of  violence  were  perpetrated  on  persons  or 
property  of  English  or  Russian  subjects.  The  Anglo- 
Russian  understanding  would  enable  Persia  to  con- 
centrate all  her  efforts  on  internal  reforms.  The 
rumors  about  England's  and  Russia's  grasping  designs 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA  253 

were  imfoimded.  ]^either  of  the  two  Powers  would 
allow  the  other  to  interfere  with  Persia's  affairs  under 
the  pretext  of  protecting  their  interests. 

The  agreement,  in  other  words,  seemed  to  imply  a 
British  guarantee  against  Russian  encroachments. 

In  the  meantime,  a  new  Shah,  who  hoth  as  Crown 
Prince  and  ruler  had  sworn  allegiance  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, ascended  the  throne.  He  repudiated  the  constitu- 
tion he  himself  had  agreed  to  defend.  In  1908  Parlia- 
ment determined  to  depose  him  for  abolishing  the  Con- 
stitution. But  both  the  Russian  Minister  and  the  Eng- 
lish Charge  d' Affaires  informed  the  Persian  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  that  the  Shah's  deposition  would  not  be 
tolerated.  If  it  took  place  Russia  would  interfere. 
Persians  preferred  to  be  tyrannised  by  their  own  to 
being  oppressed  by  foreigners,  and  allowed  the  Shah  to 
remain. 

The  Shah  was  then  in  a  position  to  carry  out  his 
coup  d'Etat  in  Teheran.  The  Russian  Colonel  Liakof 
met  but  slight  opposition  when  he,  at  the  head  of  his 
Russian-Persian  brigade,  bombarded  the  House  of  Par- 
liament while  the  Shah  killed  the  deputies  and  the  news- 
paper proprietors  who  had  neglected  to  seek  refuge  at 
the  British  Legation.  But  while  Teheran  surrendered 
immediately,  the  people  of  Tabriz  defeated  the  Shah's 
army  and  resisted  a  siege  for  nine  months.  When  it  at 
last  was  known  that  the  inhabitants  were  starving  to 


254  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

death,  and  that  the  few  Europeans  who  had  remained 
were  in  mortal  danger,  a  Russian  army,  in  April,  1909, 
marched  into  Tabriz. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  approved  of  this  step  and  promised 
that  the  sojourn  of  the  Russian  troops  should  be  merely 
temporary. —  The  Russian  garrison,  however,  has  not 
yet  left  the  city. — 

In  the  meantime,  encouraged  by  the  resistance  of 
Tabriz,  a  Persian  army  marched  against  Teheran  from 
the  north  and  from  the  south,  defeated  Liakof  and  his 
Cossacks  and  deposed  the  Shah.  A  prince  regent  was 
nominated  for  the  Shah's  eleven-year-old  son,  and  a  new 
Parliament  was  elected  to  continue  the  work  broken  off 
by  Liakof. 

For  the  next  two  years  Persia  was  peaceful,  and  its 
anxieties  were  of  a  financial  nature.  The  cash  box  was 
empty  and  Persian  noblemen  refused  to  pay  their  taxes. 
In  order  to  escape  them  they  registered  as  living  under 
Russian  protection.  Robbery,  carried  out  by  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  former  Shah,  was  becoming  a  national 
plague,  and  was  made  a  pretext  for  calling  upon  Rus- 
sian aid  and  Russian  troops. 

Persia  had  to  take  up  a  loan,  and  England  and  Russia 
offered  to  float  it  provided  they  could  control  expendi- 
tures. To  escape  such  control  Persia  negotiated  di- 
rectly with  a  banking  concern  in  London.  The  English 
Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs  objected,  however,  and 
demanded  that  Persia  allow  the  English  police  to  or- 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA  255 

ganise  South  Persia.  In  case  of  refusal  he  threatened 
to  send  an  Indian  anny  into  the  country. 

In  the  meantime,  in  1911,  an  American  business  man, 
Morgan  Shuster,  arrived.  He  was  sent  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  reorganise  Persia's 
finances.  He  showed  unusual  strength  of  character  and 
executive  ability,  inspired  such  confidence  in  Parlia- 
ment that  it  accorded  him  almost  autocratic  power. 
Morgan  Shuster  engaged  an  English  major,  who  spoke 
Persian  and  was  familiar  with  the  country  to  form  a 
gendarme  corps  to  collect  taxes.  The  Persian  Govern- 
ment confiscated  the  property  of  the  brother  of  the 
former  Shah,  who  had  allied  himself  with  the  exiled 
monarch  who  was  now  preparing  to  attack  the  country, 
and  established  Morgan  Shuster  in  this  brother's  palace 
at  Teheran.  But  the  corps  of  gendarmes  were  beaten 
by  Russian  Cossacks,  and  Russian  troops  marched  to- 
ward Teheran. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  then  intervened  and  advised  the 
Persians  to  make  some  settlement.  He  guaranteed  that 
the  Russian  army  would  not  penetrate  further  into  the 
country  if  Russia's  ultimatum  were  accepted.  Accord- 
ing to  this  Morgan  Shuster  was  to  be  immediately  de- 
posed, Russia  and  England  were  to  have  the  power  of 
veto  in  the  appointment  of  all  foreigners  in  the  employ 
of  the  Persian  Government,  and  an  indemnity  was  to  be 
paid  to  Russia. 

As  Parliament  took  Shuster's  side,  it  was  dissolved. 


256  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 

Thereby  Persia's  independence  was  at  an  end.  Russia 
carried  through  all  her  demands,  and  as  the  Russian 
press  cried  for  vengeance,  this  was  taken  in  Tabriz 
where  a  handful  of  volunteers  had  attacked  the  Rus- 
sian troops.  A  court  martial  was  established,  and 
twenty-six  of  the  country's  leading  men  were  hung. 
The  highest  clergy  of  the  country  were  hung  on  a  great 
Persian  religious  fete  day.  It  w^as,  according  to  the  re- 
marks of  an  English  author,  as^iXthe  Germans  had  hung 
the  Archbishop  of  Malines  on  Good  Friday. 

Since  then  Persia  has  lain  paralysed. 

England  and  Russia,  together,  have  created  an  irre- 
mediable chaos.  The  British  Government  gained  con- 
trol of  the  valuable  oil  wells,  through  the  English  com- 
pany having  concessions  on  them;  Persia  is  expected 
to  furnish  most  of  the  petroleum  required  by  the  Eng- 
lish fleet.  Russia  acquired  a  fertile  territory  where  she 
can  send  her  colonists,  and  also  a  stretch  of  land  to  the 
northwest  of  Persia  w^hich  stands  in  relation  to  Russia 
and  Turkey  as  Belgium  to  France  and  Germany.  Dur- 
ing the  war  Russia  violated  this  territory  as  Germany 
violated  Belgium.  In  vain  Persia  declared  herself  neu- 
tral. A  Russian  army  marched  through  Persia  to  Van. 
The  only  difference  is  that  the  Russians  were  beaten. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  did  not  go  to  war  to  maintain 
Persia's  neutrality.  The  solemn  promise  to  respect  the 
integrity  of  Asiatic  Belgium  w^as  broken  like  Prussia's 
solemn  promise  to  respect  European  Belgium. 


BELGIUM  —  PERSIA  257 

All  who  have  admired  England  as  a  free  nation  have 
regretted  to  see  her  co-operate  with  Russia  to  crush  a 
small  country  at  the  very  moment  it  was  becoming  an 
independent  state,  just  as  Poland  was  crushed  when, 
May  3,  1791,  she  had  acquired  a  remarkable  constitution. 

In  order  to  forestall  the  cry  that  I,  in  w^riting  as  above, 
have  been  misled  by  documents  from  Gemian  sources, 
I  merely  wish  to  remark  that  I  have  never  seen  a  Ger- 
man reference  to  this  matter.  I  liavi?  drav/n  only  on 
English  sources,  just  as,  in  my  previous  articles,  I  have 
relied  entirely  upon  English  authorities.  It  is  one 
of  the  redeeming  and  beautiful  traits  of  Great  Brit- 
ain that  the  political  judgment  of  many  an  Englishman 
remains  unaffected  by  coercive  forces  or  party  passions. 
E.  D.  Morel  is  a  great  example.  C.  H.  Xorman  is 
another.  E.  D.  Morel  who  ten  years  ago  was  valued  as 
highly  in  France  as  in  England,  and  who  bears  the  un- 
doubted stamp  of  a  great  personality,  may  view  without 
anxiety  the  loss  of  his  position  in  Parliament  in  Eng- 
land, and  his  popularity  in  France ;  he  is  far  above  his 
opponents. 

As  far  as  I  know  he  has  never  expressed  any  opinion 
on  Persia ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  what  he  feels. 

If,  with  regard  to  Great  Britain  and  Persia,  condi- 
tions are  as  stated  above,  how  can  anybody  like  Mr. 
Archer  look  upon  the  world  war  from  the  simplicist 
moral  judicial  point  of  view:  Truth  against  falsehood, 
good  against  evil? 


258  THE  WOKLD  AT  WAR 

Conditions  are  by  no  means  so  simple.  England  — 
in  spite  of  much  that  is  justified  and  fair  in  her  actions 
—  has  by  no  means  monopolised  right,  and  in  spite  of 
her  fundamental  love  of  liberty,  she  is  very  far  from 
being  the  defender  of  liberty  against  the  representa- 
tives of  despotism. 

The  word  right  does  not  bring  much  political  advance- 
ment or  as  La  Salle,  in  Assisenrede  expressed  it : 

'^  In  the  life  of  a  nation  right  is  a  dangerous  prin- 
ciple, for  laws  are  the  expression  of  the  desire  of  the 
community,  never  rule  the  community."  And  he  says 
that  right  is  a  "  dark  crutch  "  to  lean  on. 

When  Louis  XIV  in  1617  took  ten  districts  in  Alsace, 
and  in  1681  deprived  Strassburg,  too,  of  its  privileges, 
Alsace  became  French  by  the  doubtful  right  of  conquest. . 
WTien  in  1871  Alsace  was  annexed  by  the  Germans  on 
the  ground  that  old  injustice  was  to  be  compensated, 
public  opinion  in  Europe  felt  that  France  was  most  un- 
justly mutilated,  although  the  treaty  of  Frankfort 
legally  made  Alsace  part  of  the  German  Empire. 

I  imagine  that  every  one  agrees,  more  or  less,  that 
when  German  business  men  and  bankers  demand  the  an- 
nexation of  Belgium  and  the  north  of  France  it  is  be- 
cause they  look  upon  these  territories  as  coal.  This  is 
called  reprehensible.  But  may  it  not  equally  well  be 
admitted  that  when  Persia  is  regarded  by  the  English 
foreign  department  as  petroleum  needed  by  the  English 
navy,  right  is  also  flouted? 


BELGIUM  — PEESIA  259 

In  both  cases  economic  demands  take  the  place  of 

'''^viiy  then  despise  and  blame  neutrals  for  being  unable 
to  judge  between  right  and  wrong,  and  to  pretend  that 
the  belligerents  alone  know  on  which  side  is  right« 

An  epigram  of  Goethe  reads  thus : 

"Goats!     To  the  left!"     Thus  will  the  Judge  command. 

«  To  the  right,  assemble,  ye  mild  sheep! " 
Yet,  it  is  to  be  hoped  the  Judge  will  also  say: 

"  Opposite  me,  ye  men  of  reason." 

There  will  b©  no  crush. 


CONCLUSION 

Reply  toi  Mr.  Akcher 
(July,  1916) 

It  is  agreeable  to  meet  an  opponent  like  Mr.  Archer 
because  his  polemics  are  objective.  Outside  of  England 
the  tone,  as  a  rule,  is  one  of  common  vulgarity.  Mr. 
Archer's  attacks  spring  from  sincere  conviction  but  he 
does  not  deny  his  opponent's  culture  and  belief  in  ideals. 

Nevertheless,  as  I  frequently  find  personal  insinua- 
tions in  the  Danish  as  well  as  in  the  foreign  press,  not 
to  mention  anonymous  letters  which  reek  with  the  odour 
of  the  flower  of  the  Danish  rabble,  allow  me  once  for  all 
to  state : 

That  I  have  the  pleasure  of  being  the  member  of  three 
prominent  London  clubs.  I  am  honourary  member  of 
three  English  scientific  societies  and  have  been  honour- 
ary president  of  one.  A  Scotch  university  conferred 
the  honourary  title  of  L.L.D.  upon  me.  It  is  evident 
that  I  am  therefore  tied  to  Great  Britain  by  strong 
bonds  and  am  deeply  indebted  to  the  literary  and  art- 
istic worlds  of  England,  and  I  have  always  felt-  myself 
strongly  attracted  by  English  life  and  spirit. 

I  have  never  received  the  slightest  honour  or  recogni- 
tion of  any  kind  whatsoever  in  the  German  Empire,  nor 

260 


CONCLUSION  261 

from  Austria-Hungary, —  not  even  the  red  ribbon  of 
a  fourth-class  decoration.  I  have  never  been  a  member 
of  any  German  association  or  of  any  German  society. 
I  have  never  received  distinctions  of  any  kind  from  a 
German  university.  Because  of  my  opinions  on  the 
Danes  in  South  Jutland  I  have  for  more  than  twenty 
years  been  unpopular  in  Germany.  One  could  hardly 
say  I  am  bribed  to  plead  Germany's  cause.  When  I 
have  stated  the  truth  as  I  saw  it,  the  reason  is  not  neces- 
sarily that  I  am  fishing  for  the  Kaiser's  favour,  as  in- 
sanely insinuated  by  Mr.  Clemenceau. 

Mr.  Archer's  fundamental  idea  is  that  only  the  Cen- 
tral Powers  (i.e.,  certain  of  their  men  alone)  are  re- 
sponsible for  the  war.  His  fundamental  thought  is  one 
often  expressed  by  the  Allies:  the  absolute  unprepared- 
ness  for  war  proves  clearly  that  the  badly  prepared  part 
was  the  lamb,  the  other  the  wolf. 

To  my  mind,  if  a  Continental  power  in  the  summer  of 
1914  was  not  p^-epared;  this  Vk'a;^  due  to  nothing  but  the 
carelessness,  negligence,  disorder,  lack  of  forethought  of 
its  leaders.  And  yet  the  nation  might  have  hoped 
vaguely  to  win  back  by  war  the  provinces  torn  away  by 
force  of  arms.  It  is  even  possible  that  such  a  war  was 
looked  upon  as  a  sacred  duty,  and  that,  in  spite  of  it 
all,  military  affairs  had  been  neglected. 

And  what  I  here  say  about  a  Continental  power,  ap- 
plies equally  to  a  sea  power. 


262  THE  WORLD  AT  WAR 


The  27tli  of  iSTovember,  1911,  in  London,  a  question 
arose  in  Parliament  as  to  whether  the  Morocco  agree- 
ment between  England  and  France  made  in  April,  1904, 
implied  that  England  was  to  lend  military  support  on 
land  or  on  sea  and  if  so,  upon  what  conditions  ?  Answer 
was  given  to  the  effect  that  diplomatic  co-operation  did 
not  imply  military  or  naval  aid.  The  same  day  Sir 
Edward  Grey  said :  "  Let  me  try  to  put  an  end  to 
some  of  the  suspicions  with  regard  to  secret  agreements. 
AVe  have  laid  before  the  House  the  secret  articles  of  the 
Agreement  with  France  in  1904.  There  are  no  other 
secret  engagements.  .  .  .  We  have  not  made  a  single 
secret  Article  of  any  kind  since  we  came  into  office." 

On  August  3rd,  1914,  Sir  Edward  Grey  read  in  Par- 
liament, among  other  things,  the  following  paragraph 
from  a  document  which  he  had  sent  the  French  ambassa- 
dor in  London  K'ovember  22nd,  1912. 

"  You  have  pointed  out  that  if  either  Government  had 
grave  reason  to  expect  an  unprovoked  attack  by  a  third 
Power  it  might  become  essential  to  know  whether  it 
could  in  that  event  depend  on  the  armed  assistance  of 
the  other.  I  agree  that  if  either  Government  had  grave 
reason  to  expect  an  unprovoked  attack  by  a  third  Power 
or  something  that  threatened  general  peace  "  (a  very 
latitudinous  remark)  "  it  should  immediately  discuss 
with  the  other  whether  both  Governments  should  act  to- 


CO:^rCLüSIOi^  263 

gether  to  prevent  aggression  and  to  preserve  peace,  and 
if  so  what  measures  they  would  be  prepared  to  take  in 
common."  In  the  same  speech  he  said :  ^'  We  are  not 
a  party  to  the  Franco-Russian  Alliance.  We  do  not 
even  know  the  terms  of  that  Alliance." 

(A  most  remarkable  statement.) 

In  February,  1913,  Lord  Hugh  Cecil  said  during  the 
Address  debate :  "  It  is  generally  believed  that  the  na- 
tion has  been  bound  not  exactly  by  a  treaty,  but  by  an 
agreement  created  by  the  assurance  given  by  a  member 
of  the  Cabinet  to  send  an  expeditionary  force  to  operate 
on  the  Continent  under  certain  conditions."  Mr.  As- 
quith  here  interrupted  the  speaker  with  the  words: 
"  I  feel  bound  to  say  this  is  not  true." 

The  24th  of  March,  1913,  the  Prime  Minister  was 
again  asked  if  British  military  forces  imder  certain  con- 
ditions could  not  be  required  to  operate  on  the  Conti- 
nent. He  replied :  "  As  has  been  repeatedly  stated, 
this  country  is  not  under  any  obligation  not  public  and 
known  to  Parliament  which  compels  it  to  take  part  in 
any  war." 

Was  this  answer  in  accordance  with  the  truth  ? 

As  the  same  rumours  were  afloat  again  the  following 
year,  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the  28th  of  April,  1914,  de- 
clared :  "  The  situation  is  the  same  as  that  explained 
by  the  Prime  Minister  in  his  reply  of  March  24,  1913." 

June  11,  1914,  Sir  Edward  Grey  replied  to  the  same 
question.     "  There    are    no    unpublished     agreements 


264  THE  WOELD  AT  WAR 

which  would  restrict  or  hamper  the  freedom  of  the  Gov- 
ernment or  of  Parliament  to  decide  whether  or  not 
Great  Britain  should  participate  in  a  war." 

This  may,  without  exaggeration,  be  called  sophis- 
try. 

There  was  the  letter  of  November  12,  1912,  written 
in  frightful  diplomatic  style,  but  which  unmistakably 
associated  England  with  every  military  adventure  into 
which  Russia  might  drag  France. 

The  end  of  the  Foreigii  Minister's  speech  was  still 
more  remarkable :  ^'  But  if  any  agreement  were  to  be 
concluded  that  made  it  necessary  to  withdraw  or  modify 
the  Prime  Minister's  statement  of  last  year  it  ought, 
and  I  suppose  that  it  would  be  laid  before  Parliament." 

II 

The  above  quotations  from  parliamentary  speeches 
show  that  England  was  not  unacquainted  with  the 
thought  of  a  war  with  Germany. 

Mr.  Archer  takes  it  for  granted  that  Germany  anx- 
iously wanted  a  war  with  England. 

The  military  party  undoubtedly  did ;  but  Great  Brit- 
ain's declaration  of  war  was  so  unexpected  it  caused 
the  greatest  consternation  in  Germany.  One  may  re- 
gard the  German  Government  as  extremely  naive  in 
this  matter,  but  undoubtedly  it  was  most  painfully  sur- 
prised. Emperor  William  had,  as  C.  H.  Norman  has 
proved,  some  reason  to  believe  that  England  would  re- 


COISTCLUSIO]^  265 

main  neutral.  In  1900-01  lie  had  prevented  a  Euro- 
pean coalition  against  England  to  oblige  her  to  make 
peace  with  the  South  African  republics  upon  favourable 
terms.  He  had  shown  his  friendship  for  England  by 
not  receiving  the  Boers'  deputies  in  Berlin,  although 
they  had  been  feted  everywhere  in  Europe;  he  had,  as 
expressed  in  the  Daily  Telegraph  interview  of  1908,  re- 
fused Russia's  and  France's  demand  to  join  them  in 
requesting  Great  Britain  to  end  the  Boer  War. 

^'either  France  nor  England  has  ever  dared  deny 
this. 

Exactly  anxious  to  have  a  war  with  England  the 
Kaiser  evidently  was  not.  And  that  he  six  years  after 
the  above-mentioned  interview  should  have  wished  to 
become  the  enemy  of  the  whole  world  would  be  hard  to 
prove  or  to  convince  any  thinking  person  of.  His  Gov- 
ernment calculated  badly,  slipped  in  its  reckoning, 
that  is  certain.  But  in  1914  Germany  did  not  want  a 
war  with  England,  and  the  hatred  of  German  people 
for  England,  which  has  found  such  repulsive  expression 
in  Germany,  is  due  precisely  to  the  surprise  at  meeting 
an  unexpected  enemy  and  a  very  strong  one  in  Great 
Britain. 

At  the  last  moment  German  diplomacy  did  what  it 
could  to  buy  England's  neutrality.  It  groped  its  way. 
The  German  Chancellor  offered  Sir  Edward  Goeschen 
to  guarantee  French  territorial  integrity  if  Germany 
succeeded  in  defeating  France  and  Russia.     Sir  Ed- 


^6ß  THE  WORLD  AT  WAE 

ward  Grey  refused,   as  Germany  was  not  willing  to 
guarantee  the  integrity  of  the  French  colonies. 

Prince  Lichnowsky,  German  ambassador  in  London, 
then  asked  if  England  would  remain  neutral  if  Ger- 
many did  not  violate  Belgian  neutrality.  This  promise 
Sir  Edward  Grey  did  not  wish  to  make;  he  wished  to 
have  his  hands  free.  (^'  I  did  not  think  we  could  give  a 
promise  of  neutrality  on  that  condition  alone.")  Would 
he  promise  to  remain  neutral  if  Germany  agreed  to  guar- 
antee the  integrity  of  both  France  and  her  colonies? 
Xo,  he  would  not  bind  himself.  Would  he  then  give 
the  condition  upon  which  England  would  remain  neu- 
tral ?    :n"o. 

{"  The  ambassador  pressed  me  as  to  whether  I  could 
formulate  conditions  upon  which  we  would  remain  neu- 
tral. He  even  suggested  that  the  integrity  of  France 
and  her  colonies  might  be  guaranteed.  I  said  I  felt 
obliged  to  refuse  definitely  any  promise  to  remain  neu- 
tral on  similar  terms,  and  that  I  could  only  say  we  must 
keep  our  hands  free.") 

Since  then  Sir  Edward  Grey  has  said  that  Prince 
Lichnowsky  certainly  exceeded  his  authority  in  suggest- 
ing these  conditions,  but  this  is  only  because  the  Eng- 
lish minister  is  convinced  of  Germany's  irresistible  de- 
sire to  fight  Russia,  France,  England,  and  Belgium. 

As  I  have  said  before,  and  as  any  one  can  see,  Ger- 
many was  prepared  for  a  German-Russian  war,  in  case 
this  would  result  from  Austria's  attack  on  Serbia.     She 


COIS^CLUSIOK  267 

would  have  left  France  (and  therefore  Belgium)  in 
peace  if  France  had  promised  to  remain  neutral  in  such 
a  war.  But  France,  as  it  is  known,  was  boimd  to  help 
Eussia.  This  alliance  which  had  been  prepared  for  a 
generation,  whose  wisdom  the  future  must  judge,  is  at 
any  rate  one  of  the  reasons  why  half  a  dozen  million  men 
spend  their  days  in  miserably  trying  to  kill  one  another. 

The  English  minister  of  foreign  affairs  —  without 
the  knowledge  of  Parliament  —  promised  to  help  France 
in  the  event  of  a  European  war.  Because  of  the  new- 
born sympathy  for  France  public  opinion  in  England 
would  undoubtedly  have  approved  of  this  policy,  if  it 
had  known  of  it.  But  it  surely  would  not  have  approved 
the  obligation  placed  upon  England  if  it  had  known  that 
this  obligation  was  incurred  by  the  relation  of  France 
to  Russia  —  the  only  power  that  had  nothing  to  lose  by 
a  war.  Russia's  human  material  is  so  great  that  the 
loss  of  human  life  in  the  event  of  war  could  be  re- 
garded as  an  incident.  Besides  a  conservative  govern- 
ment would  be  strengthened  if  the  war  awakened  na- 
tional passions  and  led  to  victory. 

If  informed  of  the  political  situation,  public  opin- 
ion in  Great  Britain  would  have  realised  that  the  very- 
origin  of  the  war  promised  no  good  for  the  liberty  of 
humanity  or  for  human  happiness.  Even  in  the  event 
of  the  Allies'  victory,  it  heralded  an  immense  increase 
of  Russia's  power,  and  meant  victory  for  a  form  of 
government  opposed  to  England's.     For  the  Russian 


268  THE  WOELD  AT  WAE 

people,  who,  as  human  beings,  have  won  Europe's  heart, 
this  victory  meant  no  betterment. 

Ill 

I  do  not  believe  my  excellent  opponent,  Mr.  Archer, 
can  despise  Prussian  militarism  more  than  I.  It  has 
its  excuse  in  the  obligation  to  guard  two  frontiers, 
one  between  Germany  and  Eussia  and  the  other  between 
Germany  and  Erance.  Its  excuse  in  regard  to  Erance 
is  that  the  Erench  have  taken  Berlin  half  a  dozen  times, 
while  the  Germans  have  been  in  Erance  two  or  three 
times  only.  Its  spirit  of  caste  and  its  insolence  is  re- 
pellant.  But  it  is  scarcely  worse  than  militarism  of 
other  countries.  Under  the  Dreyfus  affair  Europe, 
even  England,  saw  with  a  certain  anxiety  the  aspect 
which  even  Erench  militarism  could  take.  And  as  for 
Eussia's  militarism,  the  idyllic  and  charming  Eussians 
who  have  fascinated  my  honourable  friend,  Mr.  Wells, 
just  as  they  have  conquered  all  our  hearts,  they  slaugh- 
tered in  cold  blood  in  1900  the  whole  Chinese  population 
of  Blagovest<5henk  and  its  environs.  The  Cossacks  tied 
the  Chinese  together  by  their  pig  tails  and  threw  them 
into  the  river,  or  thrust  them  out  upon  rafts  that  could 
not  hold  them.  When  the  women  threw  their  babes 
on  the  shore  and  prayed  that  at  least  the  children  might 
be  spared,  the  little  ones  were  pierced  by  bayonets. 

"  Nothing  worse  than  the  mass  murder  at  Blagoves- 
tchenk  has  ever  been  committed  by  the  Turks,"  \vrote 


CON^CLUSION  269 

Mr.  F.  E.  Smith,  the  former  English  censor  of  the 
press,  in  1907,  precisely  the  year  when  England  and 
Russia  agTced  on  the  treaty  that  undermined  Persia's 
independence. 

The  same  English  correspondent  has  verified  the 
story  which  the  Times'  correspondent  at  that  time  told 
of  Japanese  militarism,  x^ovember  21,  1894,  the  Japa- 
nese army  stormed  Port  Arthur  and  for  four  days  in 
succession  the  soldiers  slaughtered  civilians,  men  and 
women  and  children,  with  the  utmost  barbarity.  "  The 
day  was  employed  in  murder  and  plunder  from  dawn 
till  nightfall,  by  means  of  every  thinkable  torture,  until 
the  city  became  a  ghastly  horror  which  will  be  remem- 
bered with  a  shiver  by  every  survivor  till  the  last  day 
of  his  life." 

Militarism's  national  colour  is  of  little  importance. 
It  is  pretty  much  the  same  all  over.  I  wish  Mr.  Archer 
would  read  the  lecture  held  in  Hamburg  January  30, 
1915,  by  Dr.  C.  Yöhringer  from  German  Africa.  He 
would  see  how  the  inhabitants  of  Cameroun,  about  fifty 
women  and  men,  surprised  by  the  declaration  of  war, 
suffered  when  English  officers  locked  them  in  under  the 
command  of  blacks  who  maltreated  them.  They  were 
packed  together  in  a  small  room,  without  retiring  rooms 
and  suffered  from  hunger  and  thirst.  The  prisoners 
in  Duala  were  locked  in  a  ship's  cabin  so  small  that 
they  all  had  to  remain  standing.  On  a  transport  to 
Lagos  the  prisoners  suffered  from  thirst.     If  they  asked 


270  THE  WORLD  AT  WAH 

for  water  it  was  brought  them  in  spittoons  and  a  British 
officer  said :  ''  It  doesn't  matter  whether  the  German 
swine  get  water  or  not."  They  were  not  allowed  water 
for  washing  all  the  way  from  Lagos  to  England. 

Such  is  English  militarism.  Will  it  be  —  is  it  — 
much  better  than  Prussian  when  the  English  people's 
national  feeling,  as  that  of  other  nations,  is  stirred  to 
insanity  ? 

Would  that  ]\rr.  Archer  and  other  prominent  men  in 
and  outside  of  Great  Britain  could  be  induced  to  cease 
their  everlasting  discussion  as  to  who  is  responsible  for 
the  war  and  upon  whom  the  punishment  should  fall  and 
would  concentrate  their  efforts  on  solving  the  only  real 
and  vital  question,  that  of  finding  a  way  out  of  this  hell ! 
To  it  may  truly  be  applied  the  words  of  Macbeth : 

"  Oh,  horror,  horror,  horror!     Tongue  nor  heart 
Cannot  conceive  nor  name  thee!" 

The  belligerents  are  insatiable.  At  the  Conference 
of  Paris  they  decided  to  continue  the  commercial  war 
when  the  clash  of  arms  comes  to  an  end.  Insanity  seems 
fated  to  reign  forever. 

The  war  must  end  with  an  agreement,  and  as  the  real 
nature  of  the  war  is  economic,  this  agreement  must  be 
economic.  England  as  a  nation  of  free  trade  has 
shown  the  world  the  way.     A  tariff  agreement  will  be 


CONCLUSION  2Y1 

Tinavoidable  and  both  parties  will  have  to  make  conces- 
sions. Greater  trade  freedom  must  be  sought  until 
universal  free  trade  is  reached  at  last. 

A  man  from  the  country  which  has  suffered  most 
from  the  war,  a  Belgian  business  man  from  Charleroi, 
M.  Henri  Lambert,  points  to  the  only  sane  solution. 
He  claims  that  the  only  wise  and  far-sighted  policy  re- 
garding a  tariff  agreement  is  to  be  jiLst  and  to  allow 
even  the  enemy  to  live.  There  can  be  no  lasting  im- 
provement in  European  conditions  unless  the  party 
seeking  peace  is  forced  to  abandon  or  at  least  greatly 
reduce  its  protective  tariff.  For  this,  complete  and 
equitable  reciprocity  should  be  granted.  That  instru- 
ment of  economical  competition  called  "  dumping,"  for 
which  the  English  so  blame  the  Germans,  can  only  be 
done  away  with  by  the  "  open  door." 

A  tariff  agreement  will  be  necessary  even  in  the  im- 
probable event  of  one  party  winning  an  overwhelming 
victory,  for  which  a  dozen  millions  or  more  men  will 
have  to  be  sacrificed  on  the  battlefields  and  in  the  homes. 

Suppose  that  the  victor,  as  suggested  at  the  Economic 
Conference  in  Paris,  should  decide  to  discriminate 
against  the  defeated  by  means  of  unequal  tariffs. 
The  conquered  nation  would  thereby  be  dragged  down 
to  a  lower  level,  and  humanity  would  be  set  back  to  the 
days  when  whole  nations  were  enslaved. 

The  vanquished,  under  such  pressure,  would  have  but 
one  passion :  revenge  and  redress !     They  would  turn  to 


272  THE  WOKLD  AT  WAR 

account  every  disagreement  between  the  victors,  and 
within  fifty  years  would  succeed  in  breaking  loose.  Po- 
litical alliances  do  not  last  half  a  century. 

Europe's  peace  in  the  future  depends  on  free  trade. 
Eree  trade,  as  Cobden  has  said,  is  the  greatest  peace- 
maker. It  seems,  moreover,  the  only  possible  peace- 
maker. 

In  ancient  times  people  put  the  eyes  out  of  the  old 
horses  set  to  drag  the  mill  stones  round  and'  round.  In 
the  same  way  to-day,  the  unfortunate  nations  of  Europe, 
blinded  to  reality,  imder  the  yoke,  believing  themselves 
free,  grind  the  mills  of  war. 


T 


HE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of  books 
by  the  same  author  or  on  kindred  subjects. 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 

Shakespeare:  A  Critical  Study 

Cloth,  8vo,  690  pp.  and  index,  $2.60. 
"  On  these  volumes  as  a  whole  we  can  bestow  hearty  praise  and 
commendation.  No  other  single  work  on  Shakespeare  includes  so 
much,  and  so  much  that  is  valuable.  Dr.  Brandes  is  a  good,  a 
first-rate  'all-round  man.'  There  is  no  side  of  his  subject  which 
he  neglects.  He  is  both  an  antiquary  and  a  critic,  interested  in 
the  smallest  details  of  biography,  and  also  taking  broad  and  com- 
prehensive views  of  Shakespeare's  thought  and  style.  His  book  is 
in  its  way  encyclopaedic,  and  we  venture  to  say  that  there  are  few 
people  —  few  scholars  —  who  would  not  find  themselves  the  better 
informed  and  the  wiser  for  its  perusal.  He  has  equipped  himself 
for  his  task  by  wide  study  and  research ;  and  on  all  the  materials 
he  has  amassed  he  has  brought  to  bear  a  judgment  well  balanced 
and  vigorous,  and  a  mind  liberal  and  independent.  It  is  many 
years  since  there  has  been  any  contribution  to  Shakespearean 
literature  of  such  importance  as  this.  These  two  volumes  are  of 
solid  worth,  and  deserve  a  place  in  every  Shakespearean  student's 
library." — The  Athenc^um,  London. 


Ferdinand  Lassalle 


8vo,  $2.00 

Those  who  know  Lassalle  only  as  the  passionate  lover  in  George 
Meredith's  Tragic  Comedians  will  wish  to  know  him  also  as  the 
democratic  leader,  the  man  of  letters  and  of  law,  and  to  observe 
from  a  wider  outlook  the  progress  of  a  restless  career.  George 
Brandes  has  told  the  story  interestingly,  throwing  new  light  upon 
a  much  discussed  personage. 

"  Mr.  Brandes's  monograph  bears  the  stamp  of  that  talent  which 
has  won  for  him  his  prominent  place  in  the  literature  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  As  a  character  study  the  book  is  far  more  than 
brilliant.  It  is  of  sterling  consistency,  so  lucidly  developed  that, 
having  read  it,  one  returns  with  fullest  appreciation  to  the  brief 
characterization  of  its  subject  with  which  it  opens." — New  York 
Tribune. 

"  Brandes  is  the  painter  to  make  us  see  Lassalle  alive  and 
breathing.  He  mixes  his  colors  with  faith." —  Chicago  Evening 
Post. 

"  The  story  as  told  by  the  Danish  critic  is  as  extraordinary  as 
any  romance." —  New  York  Sun. 

"  The  most  interesting  book  about  Lassalle  ever  written.  Its 
accuracy,  its  sympathy,  and  its  critical  penetration  make  it  well 
worth  reading." —  The  Dial. 

"  He  charms  us  by  the  graces  of  his  style,  and  stimulates  us  by 
the  generosity  of  his  spirit." —  The  Nation. 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Pifth  Avenue     New  York 


Main  Currents  in  Nineteenth 
Century  Literature 

Volume      I.  Emigrant  Literature, 

Volume    II.  The  Romantic  School  in  Germany. 

Volume  III.  The  Reaction  in  France  (1874). 

Volume  IV.  Naturalism  in  England  (1875). 

Volume    V.  The  Romantic  School  in  France. 

Volume  VI.     Young  Germany. 

The  Set  $9.00 

"  The  respect  which  Dr.  Brandes  has  won  from  English  readers 
and  foreign  criticism  must  always  entitle  his  work  to  serious  con- 
sideration. Judgments  from  without  should  be  instructive;  and 
Dr.  Brandes  is  marvelously  well-read,  illuminating  in  analysis, 
comprehensive  and  balanced  in  his  historic  outlook." — London 
Athen(Bum. 

"  Dr.  Brandes's  work  gives  perhaps  the  most  comprehensive  and 
philosophic  survey  of  the  literature  of  the  century  available  to 
English  readers.  Dr.  Brandes  aspired  to  write  a  history  of  ideas 
rather  than  an  account  of  books  and  authors,  and  he  succeeded  in 
doing  so.  His  volumes  form  a  valuable  commentary  upon  the 
history  life  of  the  age  with  particular  reference  to  its  political  and 
social  affiliations." —  The  Independent. 

"  A  work  which  no  student  of  literature  can  afford  to  neglect 
and  which  will  be  found  of  great  interest  by  the  general  reader  is 
*  Main  Currents  in  Nineteenth  Century  Literature,'  by  George 
Brandes,  which  is  translated  from  the  Danish  and  is  issued  in  six 
volumes  by  the  IMacmillan  Company.  Since  Taine's  '  History  of 
English  Literature'  there  has  been  no  work  given  to  the  world 
that  contains  more  that  is  original  and  suggestive  in  regard  to  the 
great  English  authors  while  from  his  position  of  detachment  in 
Denmark  the  critic  has  been  able  to  pass  in  review  the  whole 
development  of  European  thought  as  it  found  expression  in  the 
best  writers  of  France,  Germany  and  the  Scandinavian  countries." 
— San  Francisco  Chronicle. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 

Friedrich  Nietzsche 

$1-25 

"  The  beginner  in  philosophic  study  will  find  Brandes's  book 
readable  and  informing,  and  the  scholar  will  find  it  a  luminous  and 
delectable  morsel  —  all  too  short." —  Indianapolis  News. 

"The  volume  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  interpretations  of 
Nietzsche's  life  and  character  and  work  that  has  been  issued  since 
his  death,  fourteen  years  ago." —  Philadelphia  North  American. 

"A  critique  of  Nietzsche  by  a  spiritual  peer  —  that  is  something 
we  have  not  had  hitherto,  nor  even  come  within  distant  sight  of. 
A  correspondence  between  Nietzsche  and  a  spiritual  peer  —  that  is 
something  that  even  the  future  will  not  give  us  again,  in  all 
probability. 

"  But  in  this  one  small  book,  and  for  this  once,  George  Brandes 
gives  us  both,  and  they  are  both  of  such  quality  as  should  evoke 
the  enthusiasm  of  all  who  are  dedicated  to  the  triumph  of  the 
spirit  in  its  eternal  war  with  mediocrity. 

"  In  this  fascinating  book  Brandes  gives  us  his  first  reaction  to 
Nietzsche's  thought,  a  brief  running  sketch  of  Nietzsche's  world 
view  and  life  view,  shows  his  own  agreements  and  disagreements 
with  them,  and  follows  with  that  correspondence  which  ended  with 
one  of  the  shortest  and  most  tragic  letters  that  the  world  has  been 
given : 

"'To  the  Friend  Georg: 

"  *  When  once  you  had  discovered  me,  it  was  easy  enough  to  find 
me ;  the  difficulty  now  is  to  get  rid  of  me.  .  .  .  The  Crucified.'  " — 
Chicago  Evening  Post. 

"  The  sense  of  Nietzsche's  sinister  influence  is  deepened  after 
reading  the  little  volume  of  essays  by  Brandes,  whose  criticism  is 
always  as  a  finger  of  flame  pointing  at  the  very  heart  of  the  work 
he  is  dealing  with." — American  Scandinavian  Review. 

"  In  the  mass  of  vituperative  and  eulogistic  criticism  to  which  he 
has  been  subjected  it  is  refreshing  to  find  such  a  fair  and  sympa- 
thetic review  of  his  philosophy  and  personality  as  that  of  Dr. 
Brandes.  .  .  .  Every  student  of  Nietzsche  can  draw  profit  and  in- 
struction from  Dr.  Brandes's  book,  which  combines  fulness  and 
accuracy  of  information  with  fairness  and  moderation  of  style." — 
Philadelphia  Press. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


Poland,  a  Study  of  the 
Land,  People  and 
Literature 


Cloth,  8vo,  $s.oo 


George  Brandes  here  makes  such  a  study  of  that  tragic 
nation,  the  Poles,  as  has  probably  never  been  made  before. 
Their  attitude  towards  life,  the  Russians,  their  own  land 
and  their  domestic  life  and  literature  are  treated  in  a  most 
thorough  and  convincing  way. 

He  is  not  partisan  but  demonstrates  equally  the  fallacies 
and  wrongs  of  both  parties.  Knowledge  of  many  lands 
and  peoples  has  fitted  him  to  write. 

Of  their  literature  he  has  much  to  say  and  as  a  critic  he 
is  well  qualified  to  pass  upon  it. 

The  book  is  written  in  an  interesting  style  which  can- 
not fail  to  attract  the  general  reader  while  at  the  same  time 
satisfying  the  student  of  history,  literature  and  sociology. 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers     64-66  Fifth  Avenue     New  York 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE   DUE 

'■'t 

ri^'l 

U        ' 

1   .     .  . 

-  -    ■    ■     ... 

nrno 

i?nnn 

C28(1  140)M100 

it 


f^ 


COLUMBIA  UliKSEi, 


''fig? 


